On 24 Feb., 00:34, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> 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.-
So you think that d is in more than one lines. But that is impossible, because every line of the list contains, by construction, all that the previous lines contain. And certainly you don't claim that you can find more than one line that would be required to contain what one line contains? So how can you support your disagreement? How do you solve that contradiction?