In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 21 Apr., 22:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Consider the representation as a table > > > > > 1 > > > 2, 1 > > > 3, 2, 1 > > > ... > > > n, ..., 2, 1 > > > ... > > > > > All initial segments of |N (including |N itself) are in the first > > > column, but not in the lines of the table? > > Can you name an n that is in a column but not in a horizontal line?
For any given horizontal line, I can.
> If not, why do you believe that the comlums contain more than every > horzontal line?
Why do you misrepresent what I said so obviously?
Given any column and any line, that column contains numbers not in that line.
But the union of the set of all columns and the union of the set of all lines are the same.
> > And you have not shown how it is possible to have more naturals in a > column than in every horizontal line. Nevertheless you claim to have > shown that erroneously.
No! You claim erroneously that I have claimed it. But it is your quantifier dyslexia at work again.
What I actually claimed is that there are more naturals in ANY ONE column than in ANY ONE line, but did NOT claim more naturals in all columns collectively than in all lines collectively.
It is a distinction that is important in mathematics, even if habitually ignored in WMytheology. --