In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 20 Mrz., 21:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <ee68a743-df09-4920-bb5d-00ac1c53b...@x15g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 20 Mrz., 20:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 4:24 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > I show that every line, that is not the last line, is not needed. > > > > > > Nope. You show that it is not necessary for its contents. > > > > This is not the same as not needed. > > > > > Agreed: > > > I show that every line, that is not the last line, is not needed to > > > remain in the list in order to have its contents in the list. > > > Agreed? > > > > While you can show that any line that is not A last line is > > dispensible, you cannot show it for every line that is not THE last > > line, since "THE last line" implies a condition contrary to fact.
> > And you believe that?
> You write really as if you would believe in the > consistency of my proof.
If what is alleged by WM to be a proof is authored by WM, I always doubt its consistency, and am almost always right to do so. --