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!

--