On 3/24/2013 10:35 AM, WM wrote: > On 24 Mrz., 15:09, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/24/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote: >> >>> On 23 Mrz., 23:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mar 23, 11:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >>>>> On 23 Mrz., 21:26, William hHughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> You claim that no finite line of the set changes the union. >> >>>> There is no single finite line such that the removal of this one line >>>> changes the union. >> >>> This holds for every line and all its predecessors, i.e., for the >>> whole potentially infinite set >> >> Not when you fail to define your terms. > > Every definition needs words.
Then use some to define your terms.
Why do not do so? You are clearly so intelligent that you did not even need to properly study mathematics to know the truths of monotonic inclusive crayon marks.
Such an accomplishment speaks for itself.
Still, definitions have been requested. None have been forthcoming.