On 8 Mrz., 01:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <a4e8dab1-c681-48ca-bc5e-08ceba1ba...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 7 Mrz., 21:32, 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. > > > Try to think like a human being called sapiens sapiens should do: > > Can a line that is not the last line, i.e., that has a follower, can > > such a line be required in any respect? > > > If there is no last line, then no line is required. > > No particular line is required,
So we can exclude every line.
> but that is not the same as saying that > no lines are required.
The set of lines is ordered by the natural numbers. Every set of natural numbers has a first element.
Name the first line. Or give up your claim. Or confess that your matheology is unmathematical.
