In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 5 Mrz., 00:52, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <c89172cd-244c-4612-b473-b2a402542...@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 3 Mrz., 23:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > While what is contained in any set of lines WHICH HAS A LAST LINE is > > > > contained in that last line, when one is outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, > > > > MOST sets of lines do not have a last line, and no such set has all > > > > members of all its lines in any one line. > > > > > It is not a matter of a last line. It is enough that every line > > > contains all that its predecessors contain. This shows that there is > > > never more than one line required to contain all preceding lines. > > > > But that does not meant that any one line can contain all lines, at > > least not unless there is a last line. > > The list is constructed such that never more than one line is > containing all elements.
If the list is complete, then never even one line contains al elements, and if not complete then not the set of all lines.
> This holds for every FIS of the list
But never for the list itself.
Or does WM claim that some FIS is the list itself, and not have a successor FIS? --