In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 20 Apr., 22:12, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > 1 > > > 1, 2 > > > 1, 2, 3 > > > ... > > > contains all naturals, i.e., no one is missing, but that in no line > > > there are all naturals. That means, in no line all are together, which > > > are together in the union of all lines. Since when unioning, nothing > > > is added, that not has been previously in at least one of the lines, > > > the union must contain at least two numbers, call them m and n, which > > > were in the list, but not in the same line. > > > > Nonsense! > > > > Either m > n or n > m or m = n, but only one of these. > > > > So either m > n and both are in every line that m is in, > > or n > m and both are in every line that n is in, > > or both are in every line the either is in. > > Yeah. You got it. But that implies that all numbers of the first > column are also in one and the same line.
Right, all the numbers in column 1 are also in row 1, at least in the table shown above whose first column is all 1's. --