On 28 Feb., 23:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 11:07 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 28 Feb., 20:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well, I was of the opinion we agree. Looks like > > > I was wrong. I misinterpreted > > > > > 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. > > I am confused. Do you think that there is > an m(t) or not?-
I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among others) on t. But I do not believe that this idea belongs to "standard terminology" as you call it.