In article <01c1cb8b-0234-4238-90bf-b105202865fd@w14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 12:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 12:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Mrz., 11:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> > > > > On Mar 10, 10:40 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > But in every case we know that there is a line of the list that is > > > > > identical with the FIS of d, both existing or not existing yet. > > > > > > However this is not a findable line.- > > > > > It is not a fixable line, say. > > > > [note on teminology. "Findable" is your term. You use > > it when interpreting the very important "does not exist" > > > > If you will stipulate to > > Not important. > > > We now have > > > > There does not exist > > (in the sense of findable) > > a natural number m such that > > such that the mth line of L > > is coFIS to (d) > > The number m = max is not findable or fixable. > Note: This does not imply that d has more elements than every line. > L is coFIS to d, this means L_max = d_1, ..., d_max
Except that only in the wilds of WMytheology do either L or d have a max. Everywhere else but in WMytheology , both what WM calls L_max and calls d_max have successors which out-max them. --
