In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20 Mrz., 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <f9fdc960-d9af-4efe-9e88-4ad45e2e8...@bs5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 20 Mrz., 21:11, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > While WM may not be aware of the fine points of English, when he speaks > > > > of "THE last line", in standard English it suggest that there is a last > > > > line. > > > > > Can a well-defined list have more than one last line? > > > > It can have less than one last line! > > Then *the* last line is missing, not *a* last line as one of many.
Only if there was once a last line that has gone missing, If there never was one there is no "the last line" to have gone missing. > > > > Both the empty set > > sic: the empty set, not an empty set
"The" empty set is a subset of all sets including itself and a proper subset of all other sets, and , of course, there can only be one empty set. > > > of lines/FISONs and every infinite set of > > lines/FISONs when ordered by inclusion have less than one last line, > > i.e., no last line at all. > > Therefore all can be removed without removing the asserted contents, > namely the complete set |N.
Only in WMytheology.
Outside of WMytheology, as long as one leaves infinilyy many lines/FISONs, one still has all naturals > > Regards, WM --