In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
The set A in not "in" any one line so the set A is not in B.
> So we have an identity. There is no actually infinite line in B, so > there is no actually infinite sequence A.
At least not asa term of B. WhiLe WM claims that there is no set A, at least in Wolkenmuekenheim, there seems to be a set A in WM's questions. --