In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 4 Mrz., 22:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why should there be any one line necessary to the union of all of them > > when every line is only a subset of another line? > > Exactly. Why should there infinitely many be necessary, if none is > necessary!
Who says none are necessary? only WM!
What those who are less confused than WM say is that a set of such lines being infinite is both necessary and sufficient to include every FIS. > > > > And since ANY infinite set of lines is sufficient, and some infinite set > > of lines is necessary, > > That should be proved and not only be asserted.
Why bother with proofs when WM never proves but only asserts? WM often claims to prove, but no one reading his claimed proofs believes it.
> Name at least three lines of the asserted infinitely many.
ANY three lines, as part of an infinite set of lines, will work. > > If a bigmouth shouts "infinity", then he should be able to show at > least one element. And if he can't, he is a shown bigmouth.
Ad hominem arguments like that are fallacious and only show their author to be in the wrong.
Any set of lines whose relative compliment in the set of all lines is infinite can be shown to be unnecessary.
And WM still has to explain how his mapping from the set of binary sequences to the set of paths of a CIBT, can be a linear mapping. --