On 16 Apr., 22:45, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> It is not clear to me, or to anyone sensible, that the entire sequence > of all naturals in A, which has no maximal member, is "in" any line of > naturals that has a maximal member, and it is equally clear that every > line does have a maximal member.
Is there any number of A that is not in at least one line? For all n : (1, ..., n) of A is in line n of B. For all n : line n ob B is in (1, ..., n) of A
So we have an identity. There is no actually infinite line in B, so there is no actually infinite sequence A. (Of course A is potentially infinite as is B.)