Date: Apr 5, 2013 7:24 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 4/5/2013 3:52 PM, WM wrote:

> On 5 Apr., 22:06, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

<argument that a self-contradictory

non-instantiaible set exists has

been snipped>

>

>> One might compare the remark to a generic set

>> of forcing conditions described by the

>> information content of their initial sequences.

>

> No claptrap, please.

chuckle

> The definition is clear: We consider any subset

> of D that can be removed without changing the union of the remaining

> elements of D. Does the remaining set of lines have a first line-

> number?

Since your statement is true for every subset,

it includes the possibility of removing the

entire set. So, the answer is "not in all

cases".

> Do you reject the theorem that every non-empty set of natural numbers

> has a first element?

No.

> Do you reject proofs by infinite descente?

What made your statement nonsensical had

nothing to do with such proof methods.

> Do you

> reject mathematics in favour of matheology?

The only theology here is to be found

in WM's theocracy of one.