
Re: WMytheology again
Posted:
May 3, 2013 4:05 PM


On 03/05/2013 4:43 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article > <9880c76368f943c7807037d3fd8ac7b3@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, > WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > >> On 3 Mai, 17:09, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote: >>> On 02/05/2013 6:47 PM, Virgil wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> In article >>>> <5681362194004b67a67e8ac839a06...@p14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, >>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: >>> >>>>> On 2 Mai, 11:00, Zeit Geist <tucsond...@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:02:46 AM UTC7, WM wrote: >>>>>>> On 2 Mai, 07:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>> by construction, every finite initial segment s_n = {1, 2, 3, ..., >>>>>>>>> n} >>> >>>>>>>>> is in one single line, all finite initial segments are in one single >>> >>>>>>>>> line. But N is not more than all its finite initial segments. >>> >>>>>>>> It is the union of all those finite lines, FISONs, and while each >>>>>>>> line >>> >>>>>>>> has a largest natural in it the list of all lines does not nor does >>>>>>>> the >>> >>>>>>>> union of all lines in that list. >>> >>>>>>> The list has no last line. Each line is a union. So there is no last >>> >>>>>>> union. So there are infinitely many unions. So it is useless to union >>> >>>>>>> all lines of the list in order to obtain something that has not been >>> >>>>>>> in an infinity of unions before. >>> >>>>>> Each natural, taken as an individual, is an element of infinitely >>>>>> many lines, that is more than enough for it to be in the union. >>> >>>>> Each line is the union of all preceding lines. And there are >>>>> infinitely many unions in this infinite list. That is more than enough >>>>> to contain infinitely many naturals. >>> >>>> Any union of infinitely many "lines" which are all differing FISONs >>>> results in N, which is not only infinitely many naturals but is ALL of >>>> naturals. >>> >>> And here is another pons asinorum for the good Professor. >> >>> The union of >>> FISON(n) over all natural numbers is not
This was not written very clearly, and WM promptly seized upon the wrong interpretation. What I meant was
U {n in N} FISON(n)
(which should be recognized even in Wolkenmueckenheim as being equal to N)
is not the same as
>>> ...[[(FISON(1) U FISON(2)] U FISON(3)] ...
This obviously is a pons asinorum for the good Professor, one he simply refuses to cross.
>> You may define your union as you like. In the list we have this: >> >> FISON(n) = (...((FISON(1) U FISON(2)) FISON(3)) U ... FISON(n)) = {1, >> 2, 3, ..., n} > > Which specifically omits the natural n+1 and all infinitely many of its > successors. >> >> These unions applied in all cases contain all natural numbers that a >> union can be applied to. > > Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, one can, and must, do better than that. > > Only Wolkenmuekenheim's imprisoning walls finitely curtail otherwise > infinite sequences. >

