|
|
Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Posted:
Mar 4, 2013 6:27 AM
|
|
William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> > > Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of natural
>> > > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime numbers"
>> > > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line?
>>
>> > the potentially infinite set of every natural number
>> is always finite - up to every natural number.
>> If you don't like that
>> recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON.
>> This set is always in one line. You should understand that every
>> number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list.
>
> Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the
> list that contains every FISON. We know that such a line
> cannot be findable. There is the unfindable, variable,
> a different one for each person, line l_m. However, calling
> l_m "one single line of the list" is silly.
And the reference to "this set" by WM is equally silly, of course.
Self-delusion, or deliberate obfuscation?
Or just incompetence?
--
Alan Smaill
|
|
