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.