Date: May 12, 2013 4:55 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 261

On 12 Mai, 22:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <492841d0-4089-4ab2-818b-7505c36a6...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 11 Mai, 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <5c2d1ccc-1763-4048-a153-592bc4153...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>
> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > But I can state by pure reason: If we agree that irrelevant lines of
> > > > the list are irrelevant, then I am right and set theory is wrong. And
> > > > that is completely satifactory for me.

>
> > > But what WM calls irrelevant is not irrelevant.
>
> > Not in matheology including far distance actions. But in mathematics
> > and for every finite n the last line of

>
> > 1
> > 12
> > ...
> > 12...n

>
> > is independent of the presence or absence of the preceding lines.
>
> The process by which you get any line is not independent of the prior
> lines having at one time been in existence, so  all those prior lines
> once existed


But there is no difference for a line whether or not the preceding
lines continue to exist.

Regards, WM