```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 statementsfor which truth values obtain, he would have a chance atsaying something that made sense.  But, it is always someridiculous, irrelevant question followed by nonsensicalclaims.
```