On 3 Mrz., 23:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > You claim that there are infinitely many lines necessary in the list > > to contain all natural numbers. But for every of these claimed lines I > > can prove that it is not required in that alleged set of lines that > > contain all natural numbers. > > ANY infinite set of lines will suffice to contain all naturals, but no > finite set of lines will suffice.
Name the first finite line that is necessary. Or admit that no finite line is necessary to accomplish what you believe, namely to be the first line of the set of finite lines that contain all natural numbers.
> > A fact that is trivially obviously from the requirement that every > natural have a successor natural larger than it.
No, the belief that an infinite set of finite lines can be finished is trivially nonsense. Everybody not completely blinded by matheology can obtain that from the fact that you claim that an infinite set of lines is necessary, but you are not able to name only one of them
