Date: Feb 5, 2013 5:23 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article 
<20f3cd29-c21e-4f9e-91af-508dc505468c@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 5 Feb., 15:11, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >
> > > > More importantly, we have learned that
> > > > we can use induction to show "every"
> > > > and that "every n -> P(n)" is equivalent
> > > > to "there is no m such that ~P(m)"
> > > > So we do not need to resort to "all"
> > > > to show something does not exist.

>
>
> We have learned that one of the applications of this lemma (in fact
> the most important one) is the list itself that contains up to every
> line n only lines from 1 to n, therefore it contains no line m such
> that the potentially infinite sequence of lines 1, 2, 3, ... is
> contained up to line m.
>
> Regards, WM


So Wm now claims that in his in WMytheology world a list of lines may
always contain n lines but never m lines?
--