On 11 Feb., 09:53, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 2/11/2013 2:39 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote: > > >>>>> Please explain "existing set". > > >>>> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite. > > >>> That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new > >>> ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered. > > >>> Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new. > > >> What would be the consequence of that invariance? > > >> Every potentially infinite set already exists. > > > Who said so? > > I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite. > > You said "A is B". Not "if A, then B"
An existing set is finite or pot infinity. "set" is an object, "finite" is a property. My wife is beautiful. Not every person with the property being beautiful is my wife. > > > > > > > Now you return if pot infinite then existing. > > Logic? > > Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A. > > Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before > > understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for > > you). > > >> Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity. > > > No. > > >> This is Cantor's argument. > > > Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He > > exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers": > > "For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n" > > to > > "There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n." > > Now that I have figured out what mathematics you > are invoking, I can answer your assertions concerning > "exchange of quantifiers".
Better refrain from that attempt until you will have understood how to distinguish (in k=1 steps) between a noun and an adjective and its logical relations.