On 31 Okt., 21:38, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <aec0e788-db88-468c-b856-54ad6fe3f...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 31 Okt., 08:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > Every b_n is as nested with its predecessors and is as numerous as the > > > > corresponding d_n. > > > > If that were so, then you would have all b_n on the same line like the > > > d_n are, and not have a triangle at all. In order to have a triangle as > > > you constructed it, each row must be disjoint from all previous rows. > > > Al b_n which exist are on the same line, just like the d_n. That does > > not prevent that in addition some of them are also written above that > > line. > > So that you require have things to be in two places at once? > > What is in a line cannot also be above that line.
Counter example:
1 1,2
What else would you do in order to maintain your credo in absurdum?
