On 4/6/2013 4:04 PM, WM wrote: > On 6 Apr., 22:30, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> My claim is: >> >> Let D be the set of all lines, and let >> E be any one finite subset of D. >> Then D\E is not empty. > > Your claim is true. But your premise is wrong. E (the set that can be > removed without changing the union of the lines) is the set of all > lines that have a follower. This set of lines is infinite. By the > existence of the follower to all lines, all lines, i.e., E can be > removed without changing the union of all lines, namely |N.
WM is the one who confused himself into changing the interpretation of the instantial term E from a finite set to an infinite set.