On 25 Feb., 12:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 12:11 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Every line of L is capable of containing everything that > > > its predecessors contain. > > > And why then do you believe, or at least claim, that something that is > > completely in the list must be distributed over more than one line? > > I don't. My claim is that something that is completely > in the list *may* be distributed over more that one line.
For the given list this is precisely wrong. I constructed the list such that never more than one line is necessary to contain anything you can define (in potential infinity). And was not just that what you were interested in? > > Anyway, we know the only possible exception has > an "unfindable" index.
On the contrary. That is no exception. That is the last line that always exists in potential infinity but cannot be known.
> Only those people who care > about unfindable natural numbers (a group that > includes WM but not me
No? The numbers of those lines that contain what, according to your assertion, cannot be contained in one line, are unknowable too. Or can you name them?
