In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20 Mrz., 19:44, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Either there is a list that contains everyting that the list contins > > > in two or more lines. > > > > Since each line has a successor line and is a proper subset of that > > successor line, the only "escape" is to have a nonempty set of lines > > with no last line. > > What should a missing last line help?
A nonempty set of lines with no last line shows, among other things, that the empty set of lines will not work.
> As it is not present in the > list, it cannot change the contents of the list.
On the contrary, a nonempty set of lines WITH a last line necessarily omits all naturals not in that last line
but a nonempty set of lines WITHOUT a last line doesn't omit the naturals of any line.
> But every line, that > is not the last line and, therefore, is not missing, can be made > missing without changing the contents of the list.
It is still both necessary and sufficient for a set of line/FISONs to contain all naturals that that set b infinite, thus be both not empty and not have either a last line or largest FISON. > > > > Since contents can only exist in lines, and since every line is > > > superset to all its predecessors, the proof is correct. It shows that > > > actual infinity is unreasonable. > > > > It does not show any such thing > > You could as well refrain from declaming assertions.
Why must we refrain from doing what WM is notorious for doing? Here is
> sci.logic, not spec.tacle.
Wm often makes spectatular claims then spectacularly fails to justify them.
Like his claim to a linear map from the set of binary sequences through the reals to the set of all paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree. --