In article <7401efad-ac6a-49b9-9563-2ba7ace7649c@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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?
Every line has a successor line which cannot be contained in the line itself. > > > > 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.
Fortunately in actual infintenesses of lines, of the sort that hppens outside WMytheology, that does not ever happen. > > > 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.
Not so until you can name which line.
> Or can > you name them?
Your mythical "last line" or last natural" always has a successor in any non-WMytheological world allowing induction. --
