> On 16 Mrz., 19:26, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 16, 7:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >> > On 16 Mrz., 18:10, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Ok, I understand. Anyhow, if the number of lines is not empty, then >> > > > there must remain at least one line as a necessary line. >> >> > > Not a particular line. This is similar to >> > > the case where any set of lines with an unfindable >> > > last line has at least one "necessary" findable line. >> > > This line has a line number in the original >> > > list but we can choose the "necessary" >> > > findable line to have any line number we want. >> >> > No, it is always the last line. We call it unfindable or unfixable >> > because as soon as we have found it, it is no longer the last line. >> >> Note, that I am not talking about the unfindable line, >> but the "necessary" findable line. We can choose this >> line to have any line number we want > > In potential infinity there is no necessary line except the last one. > We know that with certainty from induction. Every found and fixed line > n cannot be necessary, because the next line contains it. > > Everything that is in the list > 1 > 1, 2 > 1, 2, 3 > ... > 1, 2, 3, ..., n > is in the last line. Alas as soon as you try to fix it, it is no > longer the last line. > > Think of the time. What is "now"? As soon as you try to fix it, it is > past. In time you can predict the development of clocks. In lists > there is no such smooth, predictable evolution. Will the next line > added to above list be n+1, or n^2 or n^n^n^n (all those of course > also including n+1 and its followers? There are no limits. But as soon > as we look onto the last line, we get the idea of another one and that > will add one or many lines to the list. > > Regards, WM
Will this braindead nonsense appear in the next "research report" of that crazy so-called "university" where you work as a stupefactor of the pitiable students?