On 21 Mrz., 03:22, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <99e95b75-d68a-4aab-9173-a638be0af...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
That is the case, in fact. Until Cantor appeared, there has always been a last line, not fixed though.
> > > > 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.
And of course there can only be one last line in the well known set. "The last line" is either there or it is absent, but it certainly not one of many in completely finished infinity.