Date: Apr 6, 2013 6:41 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 4/6/2013 5:30 AM, WM wrote:
> On 6 Apr., 00:12, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <f5967d16-5eda-4a94-8b9f-0a0f57aeb...@r7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>> On 5 Apr., 21:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 5, 6:04 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 5 Apr., 12:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> There is an infinite set of lines D
>>>>>> such that any finite subset of D can be removed.

>>
>>>>> What has to remain?
>>
>>>> This depends on the finite subset removed.
>>>> If the finite set removed is E then
>>>> D\E has to remain. Note that whatever
>>>> subset E is chosen the number of lines
>>>> in D\E is infinite

>>
>>> How do you call a set E the number of elements exceeds any given
>>> natural number?

>>
>> Infinite!
>>
>>
>>

>>>> (but of course we
>>>> do not know which lines are in D\E).

>>
>>> How do we call a set when we cannot biject it with a FIS on |N?
>>
>> Infinite!

>
> So the set E of all lines that can be removed is infinite, like every
> inductive set, by the way, and like the set that contains {a} if it
> contains a.
>


So, E is given as finite.

Next, WM asks a ridiculous irrelevant question.

Suddenly, E is not finite.

If WM even tried to have discourse in declarative statements
for which truth values obtain, he would have a chance at
saying something that made sense. But, it is always some
ridiculous, irrelevant question followed by nonsensical
claims.