> On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >> > > Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of natural >> > > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime numbers" >> > > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line? >> >> > the potentially infinite set of every natural number >> is always finite - up to every natural number. >> If you don't like that >> recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON. >> This set is always in one line. You should understand that every >> number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list. > > Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the > list that contains every FISON. We know that such a line > cannot be findable. There is the unfindable, variable, > a different one for each person, line l_m. However, calling > l_m "one single line of the list" is silly.
And the reference to "this set" by WM is equally silly, of course.
Self-delusion, or deliberate obfuscation? Or just incompetence?