In article <8b2855cd-18d0-44b1-be59-8dd3d8dabbb7@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 22 Jun., 15:36, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > In article > > <046c5a1d-9623-406f-88f4-b79b4447d...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com> WM > > <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > On 19 Jun., 16:35, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > Because you do not check the lines in order. It is > > always > > > > > > > > > > your basic assumption that you first check the first > > line > > > > > > > > > > and after that the next line. That is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is necessary because you cannot find the n-th line > > unless > > > > > > > > > you know the line number n - 1 or some equivalent mark. > > > > > > > > > > > > But why is getting the number n in any way related to the > > checking > > > > > > of the previous lines? > > > > > > > > > > Because by blind choice you cannot be sure to hit what you want. > > > > > > > > Why does it imply checking the previous lines? Why do you not answer > > > > that question? > > > > > > You cannot check line n without knowing line n-1. > > > > But why does that imply *checking* line n-1? Why do you not answer that > > question? > > It implies knowing line n-1. It implies counting till that number.
It only implies knowing that there is a line n-1 for all but one n.
