Date: May 12, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 261
On 12 Mai, 22:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> 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.