If the infinaryan is intensionally distinct from but extensionally identical to the infiniwhite. And whether one entails that the infinaryan is KingOfAryanAmerica, whereas the infinawhite is KingOfWhiteAmerica, where infinawhite and infinaryan are identical under extension, but unidentical in intension.... such that the infinitewhite is KingOfWhiteAmerica and infinaryan is KingOfAryanAmerica which makes the KingOfWhiteAmerica and KingOfAryanAmerica distinct under intension, identical under extension, where also the identity of KingOfWhiteAmerica with KingOfAryanAmerica... and whether this abstract a priori concept is necessary in regard to a theoretical but none existent abstract concept of KingOfWhiteAmerica {witch/with/which} undecidability about its true name's identity it's best description... Such that now KOAA and KOWA are intesionally the same, but extensionally distinct? Where they do or do not and ambiguously or not refer to an abstract set with null or 0 size. Or where they do or do not and unabiguously refer to a concrete particular with exact size of 1. That is, whether KOAA or KOWA refer to the flesh and blood concrete human user, or the ethereal platonic soul of KOAA and KOWA which share identity or share undecidability of identity in concept alone, without reference to the flesh and blood user. And so KOAA and/or KOWA both exist and don't exist which is a Godelean which establishes atheism under theism and proves with the existence of itself the justification of itself. Decidably or undecidably? meta meta meta. Forever and ever. @Chiro @PS @KingOfWhiteAmerica Like, when detecting the type "witch", the impossibility of determining whether or not I remember intended to type "with" or "which". Such that I can add to the type "with" the curly bracket set to yield {"witch", "with", "which"} where the second and third element are ambiguous or properly impossible to determine the original intent of. Which means I am possibly and necessarily mistaken about my intent possibly under M, where M favors the 2nd or 3rd elements respectively on whether this or that Comparator is to be greater or lesser valued. So the comparator which values "longer or identical" to "definitely smaller", affords "witch" and "which" over "with". Whereas the comparator which appeals to the parsimony of minimum number of unique characters favors the second element "with" over the respective third element "which" because of the unparsimonius addition of the unique character 'c'... And that it is impossible to determine whether this Metaproperty M is true with respect to God or not. So necessary it is impossible to determine my intent of "with" or "which" from "witch". Which means that my intent is potentially mistaken and ontologically distinct from myself. Which contradicts ontological monism. Which contradicts theism. Because under theism only and all intent is never potentially mistaken, but I certainly and with certainty established the undecidability or ambiguity of a Metaproperty M with consideration to S where S is about potentially mistaken about one's intent, as a perversion of pure intent or a refutation of pure intent.... poisjgposjgpoizsgj. Which is a Godelian M which more strongly proves Godelian theism over classical theism for all and any system of classical theism.