```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!--
```