```Date: Feb 3, 2013 10:20 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article <bc3c4c0e-d017-49b3-a4f3-22aba84aa3c7@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 3 Feb., 22:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > We can say  "every line has the property that it> > > > does not contain every initial segment of s"> > > > There is no need to use the concept "all".> >> > > Yes, and this is the only sensible way to treat infinity.> >> > So now we have a way of saying> >> > s is not a line of L> >> > e.g.  0.111...  is not a line of> >> > 0.1000...> > 0.11000...> > 0.111000....> > ...> >> > because every line, l(n),  has the property that> > l(n) does not  contain every  initial> > segment of 0.111...> > But that does not exclude s from being in the list. What finite> initial segment (FIS) of 0.111... is missing? Up to every line there> is some FIS missing, but every FIS is with certainty in some trailing> line. And with FIS(n) all smaller FISs are present.But with no FIS are all present.> > > Is there a sensible way of saying> > s is a line of L ?> > There is no sensible way of saying that 0.111... is more than every> FIS.How about "For all f, (f is a FIS) -> (length(0.111...) > length(f))" .It makes perfect sense to those not permanently encapsulated in WMytheology.--
```