On Mar 6, 11:43 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 5 Mrz., 22:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 5 Mrz., 12:45, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:57 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Let K be a (possibly potentially infinite) set of > > > > > > lines of L. Then > > > > > > > Every FISON of d is in a findable line of K > > > > > > iff K does not have a findable last line > > > > > > No, false quote. > > > > > What do you think this was a quote of? > > > > One of my statements. > > > Nope. This is my claim, put into the language we > > have now developed. It is equivalent to saying > > that L_m has no fixed maximum value, something we > > both agree with. > > > Indeed our argument is now only over language. > > We both agree that the line L_m contains > > every FIS of d, and that only L_m will do. > > We only disagree about my claim that calling > > L_m "a single line of the list" is silly.- > > L_m is a single line if m is a natural number. > Would you prefer to call L_m infinitely many lines?
Nope, I would prefer to call L_m a function (of time and person). A function may have as value a "single line of the list" but calling something that changes a "single line of the list" is silly.
