Date: Feb 25, 2013 7:09 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 25 Feb., 12:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:11 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

> > > Every line of L is capable of containing everything that
> > > its predecessors contain.

>
> > And why then do you believe, or at least claim, that something that is
> > completely in the list must be distributed over more than one line?

>
> I don't.  My claim is that something that is completely
> in the list *may* be distributed over more that one line.


For the given list this is precisely wrong. I constructed the list
such that never more than one line is necessary to contain anything
you can define (in potential infinity). And was not just that what you
were interested in?
>
> Anyway, we know the only possible exception has
> an "unfindable" index.


On the contrary. That is no exception. That is the last line that
always exists in potential infinity but cannot be known.

> Only those people who care
> about unfindable natural numbers (a group that
> includes WM but not me


No? The numbers of those lines that contain what, according to your
assertion, cannot be contained in one line, are unknowable too. Or can
you name them?

Regards, WM