Date: Feb 21, 2013 8:17 AM
Author: Michael Stemper
Subject: Re: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

In article <>, WM <> writes:
>On 20 Feb., 23:27, William Hughes <> wrote:

>> Is the statement
>> There is no natural number m
>> such that the mth line of L and x
>> are coFIS
>> true?-

>No, the statement is wrong. The true statement is: We cannot find the
>largest number such that the mth line and x are coFIS. Again you
>assume actual infinity for x.
>Consider the union of ordered sets in ZF:
>(1, )
>(1, 2, )
>(1, 2, 3, )
>Each set has a blank.

You seem to be implicitly using this order relation:
- if p and q are naturals, then pRq iff p<q and qRp iff q<p
- if r is a natural, then rR' ' (in other words any natural comes before
a blank)

Is my understanding correct?

Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk