Date: Nov 1, 2011 4:53 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: A definition of an infinity, perhaps!?

In article 
<6ae0a26b-5c15-46d4-ae4c-bde38c7ff9e2@r7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
 WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 1 Nov., 20:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > So when we add the complete first column we do no have to add a line
> > index.
> > So whether or not we have a complete first column the set of line
> > indexes
> > is identical to the set of column indexes.  Stop claiming that if the
> > first
> > column is complete there must be more lines than columns.
> 
> If the first column is complete and if an actually infinite (complete)
> string of digits is to carry any mathematical meaning or can be
> detected by mathematical means then there must be more lines than
> columns.

Since one can still biject the set of lines with the set of columns, 
WM's "more" is at best ambiguous, and is, otherwise, just another of his 
matheological messes.
--