```Date: Apr 6, 2013 4:57 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <868c2c79-124f-440d-99a3-f07e6b8ea41f@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 6 Apr., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Apr 6, 11:42 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > > On 5 Apr., 23:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > > Then G has an infinite number of> > > > elements, but you cannot name a single element of G.-> >> > > In D\E we have another situation. If someone claims that D\E contains> > > an element e, then we can prove that it is not an element of D\E by> > > induction, since E is an inductive set. This makes D\E being the empty> > > set.> >> > E does not change.> > Then you should not dare to name one of the elements of D\E.> I would immediately be able to prove that it is not in D\E.> > > E is not D so D\E is not the empty set.> > Prove it by naming an element of D that is not in E! For well-defined> and fixed sets, this would be possible - in mathematics at least.  But E is not fixed, at least not outside Wolkenmuekenheim.E is any one of infinitely many suitable sets, but not any particular one of them.If WM claims that E is a fixed set, let him specify which set it is and show that his specification denotes a unique set, not mere one of many.--
```