On 2/27/2013 1:21 PM, WM wrote: > On 27 Feb., 14:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 1:04 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >>> On 26 Feb., 22:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Now no one can stop you using whatever >>>> terminology you want. However, do not >>>> expect that you can use idiotic terminology >>>> without being considered an idiot. >> >>> But one can use such arguing without being considered as such? >> >> Nope. >> >>> Remember: Your point of view requires, what you often have emphasized: >>> There are all FIS of d in the list, but there is no line containing >>> them. This implies that they are distributed among several lines >> >> or that m, the index of line they are in is >> a variable natural number and >> that it is silly to >> say that there is one line that contains >> every FIS when this "one" line has a variable >> as index. > > Do you prefer your argument?
His is not an argument. It is the received paradigm.
> Or do you think it is not better than > mine?
Allowing, for the moment, that that to which you refer may be characterized as an argument, there is no issue of "better". You are the dissenter and have the burden of proof.
> > If you think your opinion is better, more logical, than mine, why do > you think so?
Because it respects objective knowledge in the form of principles that may ground demonstrations in a deductive calculus.
> > We can prove that there is no knowable natural number of a line that > contains all FIS of d.
One may question how you prove what is unknowable.
And, by your logic, if you happen to die before I do, you cannot prove that I am unable to successfully and completely enumerate omega. Even worse, you cannot even prove that I am unable to successfully and completely enumerate each of the n-huge cardinals.
Your methodology is able to prove only that which you can imagine since you reject all principles intended to ground the demonstration of facticity.
> Ok, we speak of a variable that is not fixed. >
Variables have fixed grammatical relations and determinate purport. They are singular terms presumed capable of standing for objects that could be ostensively named. Since you cannot materially produce the number '1', you can no better "name" or "find" the objects you imagine than could Cantor.
> We can prove that there is no knowable natural number
One may, once again, question how you prove what is unknowable.
> that is the > first one of the infinite set that you claim. What is the advantage?
It is the very advantage that you claim but do not properly analyze: