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.