In article <c93607f7-03e9-48ff-8dc5-30b303be927e@s7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 22 Nov., 08:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2:34 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 Nov., 23:55, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > "a set of lines necessary to contain all elements of |N in its union" > > > > > > is not even close to being unique. > > > > > It does not exist, as I proved by induction.
The find me an element in some line (and all these elements are in some line) which is NOT in the union of all those lines!
> > > Therefore it cannot be unique. > > > > > > In fact ANY infinite set of lines works. > > > > > > And as there are infinitely many lines > > > > > There are infinitely many lines. So we have infinitely many unions of > > > a finite initial segment and its predecessors. But infinitely many > > > unions are not an infinite union?
Is that deliberate misrepresentation or merely poor English?
What I have is the union of infinitely many finite initial segments.
What you have is "infinitely many unions of a finite initial segment and its predecessors".
