Date: Apr 5, 2013 6:09 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<ca7558fa-7ca6-4f47-9747-1e961f3109db@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 5 Apr., 22:06, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 4/5/2013 11:22 AM, WM wrote:
> >

> > > On 5 Apr., 12:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> More precisely.  There is an infinite set of lines D
> > >> such that any finite subset of D can be removed.

> >
> > > How do you call a subset of D that has no fixed last element?
> >
> > In set theory it is neither a set or a subset
> > because the question does not make sense.

>
> In set theory a set can either be bijected with a FISON or not.
>

But what does it mean for a set to have not "fixed" last element?
Does it men that that set has a non-fixed last element?
While that would be nonsense outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, only WM can
say what is allowed to go on inside Wolkenmuekenheim.
>
> A subset of D that can be removed without changing the union of the
> remaining elements of D can be defined and makes sense.
> Examples are the list D
> 1
> 1,2
> 1,2,3
> ...
> and the subset of the first n lines for every n in |N.
>
> So the question makes sense.


And the answer is that any subset of the set of FISONS of |N that is
NOT co-finite in the set of FISONs of |n can be removed without
diminishing the union of the set of remaining FISONs to less than |N.
>
> > One might compare the remark to a generic set
> > of forcing conditions described by the
> > information content of their initial sequences.

>
> No claptrap, please.


Why not from others when you are so free with your claptrap?





> Do you reject the theorem that every non-empty set of natural numbers
> has a first element? Do you reject proofs by infinite descente? Do you
> reject mathematics in favour of matheology?


What we DO reject is your WMytheology!
--