In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 21:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 7:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Line l_n and all its predecessors do not in any way influenturece (neither > > > decrease nor increase) the union of all lines, namely |N. > > > > Yes, given any set of lines K, every element of K has > > the property that it can be removed without changing > > the union of all lines. Yes, the set of lines that > > has this property is the complete set K. > > No doubt. > > > > This is the result of your proof. > > > Given the premise is valid.
What premise? Unless WM will not state all his premises, he will continue to be unable to show anything to be valid, or invalid. > > > No, this does not mean that one can do something > > that does not leave any of the lines of K > > and does not change the union of all lines. > > That is clear because my proof
WM does not nave any proofs, since proofs require premises to be known and WM will not make all of his premises known.
> Of course not. The premise is actual infinity. That is obviously not > possible in finite sets. > > > but it is something > > you do not like, not a contradiction. > > ?
That WM assumes something does not make it true anywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim. --