In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 6 Mrz., 22:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Here we are asking what lines of the list > > > 1 > > > 1, 2 > > > 1, 2, 3 > > > ... > > > are required to contain all natural numbers. The first three lines are > > > definitively not required. And every mathematician can show that no > > > line is required, > > > > While no particular line is required, WM is falsely implying hat no > > lines are required at all, whereas infinitely many lines are required. > > Every line that is not the last line, is not required, because the > next one contributes all that the line could contribute.
Since there is no last line, what you are saying is nonsense.
> Please explain how lines that obviously are not required should be > required.
Where have I ever said that any one particular line was required?
I have not said it, and for WM to claim otherwise is a falsehood.
But WM says no lines are required, which is utter nonsense. > > In my opinion, to state that infinitely many lines are required shows > a lack of logical thinking.
Since it is clear that no finite set of lines suffices to do it , the sort of simple logic that WM is incapable of using, or apparently even comprehending, requires that it either be done by an infinite set of lines or not be done at all.
And where is WM's proof that some mapping from the set of all binary sequences to the set of all paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping? WM several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it. --