On 23 Feb., 22:23, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <048af7af-14e7-4d6c-a641-b2e7304ac...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 23 Feb., 10:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 12:03 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Does > > > > > For every natural number n, P(n) > > > > is true. > > > > > imply > > > > > There is no natural number m such > > > > that P(m) is false. > > > > Does > > > > There is a line, l, of L > > > such that l has property P > > > > imply > > > > There exists a natural number > > > m such that the mth line of L > > > has property P. > > > > ? > > > Can you identify a FIS of d that is not in a line l of L? > > You cannot. Nevertheless d consists of FIS of lines of L, and of > > nothing else, by definition and by construction of d. > > Does Wm claim existence of any line l of L for which there is no FIS of > d exceeding it in length?
Of course. L is the list consisting of its lines. Obviously there exists no line of L which is longer than every line of L. Obviously there exists a line of L which is not surpassed by any line of L. However, this line cannot be found. > > Is it not true even in Wolkenmuekenheim that for every nth line of L of > length n, that the n+1_st FIS of d, of length n+1, is longer?
Consider the sets A = even naturals, B = odd naturals. For every a of A there is a larger b of B. Does that prove that the odds are in favour of the odds? How stupid your arguing is. Incredible!
