On 23 Mrz., 15:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 23, 2:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 23 Mrz., 10:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We both agree that you have not shown that we can > > > do something which leaves no lines and does not > > > change the union. > > > No, of course we do not. > > WH: this does not mean that one can do something
Of course we cannot really do infinite things. This is only an abbreviation.
I say that there is no finite line that changes the union. So the union would be the same if there was no finite line. (This is a more tedious expressing, but you seem to have run out of arguments.)
So the union would be the same if there was no finite line remaining. Your, no, we cannot remove all lines, amounts to: There must remain some finite line in order not to change the union. And this is false, because the proof says that there is no finite line available for remaining.
So either you wish to contradict a proof that you have accepted, or you talk about an infinity line.