In article <email@example.com>, William Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 5:18 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > ====================== > > > > > Can you identify a FIS of d that is not in a line l of L? > > > > No > > > > > You cannot. Nevertheless d consists of FIS of lines of L, and of > > > nothing else, by definition and by construction of d. > > > Or do you object to this fact? > > > > No. > > > > =============================== > > > > Why then are you raising the impression as if you were trying to argue > > that d is not with *all its existence* in the lines of the list? > > > > I agree that d "with *all its existence*" > is in the lines of the list. > I do not agree that this means > d with all its existence is in > one line of the list.
WM's "d" is only "IN" the lines of the list if one can somehow include some sort of union of all those lines as a line itself, which does not work in my world of standard mathematics.