On 20 Mrz., 22:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 10:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Mrz., 22:11, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 10:01 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > It cannot contain a necessary line, since, as you said, there is no > > > > necessary line. > > > > But you think that it necessarily must contain a not necessary line. > > > > Correct. However, this not necessary line can be any line. > > > > > If so, then at least one line is necessary. > > > > No, knowing that you need one line does not mean you need > > > one particular line. > > > You cannot know that you need one line, because every chice can be > > disproved. > > Nope. As noted, the fact that you need one line > does not make a choice a necessary line.
It does in a set with set-inclusive line. If no line is necessary, then there is no necessary line. If there is no necessary line, then there is no line necessary.
You wish to distinguish "necessary line" and "line necessary". But that is obviously false. Compare "red line": If there is no red line, do line is red. Or consider my precise definition "line" l_n this is increasing the contents of the whole list L over the contents of L without l_n.
> Since the > choice is not a necessary line it cannot be disproved.-
Every not necessary line can be removed. Why do you think there should remain unnecessary lines? And if they are needed, which it the first unnecessary line that must remain?