In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Monday, 14 October 2013 00:11:23 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > > > If you claim that infinitely many enumerated lines are required, then > > > name the first line number required. > > > While no particular line is neccessary, neither is any finite set of lines > > sufficient, but any and every infinite set of lines is sufficient and the > > infiniteness of a set of lines is necessary. > > > According to mathematics, every nonempty > subset of natural numbers has a > > first element. This also holds for infinite > subsets. > > > Something true from WM. > > Then obey it! Your "any and every infinite set of lines is sufficient" is > simply nonsense.
It may be nonsense inside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, but it is both sense and true everywhere else.
> You must give a smallest line required.
Tou must prove that there is as smallest line reequired, but there isn't.
The set of odd numbered lines suffices, but so does the set of even numbered lines. Since these two sets of lines have no lines in common, there can be no particular line that is required, and thus no particular smallest line that is required, thus obviously proving WM's claims to the contrary to be trivially and totally false.
> But as long as the > lines are finite, it is impossible that two or more lines contain more than > one of the lines.
But it is possible, and is the fact, that any and every infinite set of lines contains every natural in WM's diagram, but no finite set of lines does so.
Thus once again, WM's wild claims are shown to be false, or at least false everywhere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. --