On Feb 28, 12:03 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 27 Feb., 21:28, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 8:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Do you prefer your argument? > > > There is no disagreement over the facts. > > > We both agree that there is a natural number > > valued function of time, m(t), such that > > at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing > > line which contains all existing FIS of d. > > We both agree that m(t) is not constant. > > Until now I was of the opinion that you accept completed infinity. > There is no m(t). >
Well, I was of the opinion we agree. Looks like I was wrong. I misinterpreted
> Now, in standard terminology (where there > is no such thing as a variable > natural number) we have > a natural number valued function of time > (or of the number of FISs of d that "actually > exist", an increasing function of time) > m(t). It is trivial to see that there > is an m(t) such that the "actually existing" > line with index m(t), contains all > "actually existing" FISs of d.
WM: Exactly!
I still do not understand why I cannot take a simple natural number valued function of time, say a(t) and set it equal to m.
