Date: Feb 25, 2013 8:57 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<7401efad-ac6a-49b9-9563-2ba7ace7649c@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> 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?


Every line has a successor line which cannot be contained in the line
itself.
> >
> > 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.


Fortunately in actual infintenesses of lines, of the sort that hppens
outside WMytheology, that does not ever happen.
>
> > 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.


Not so until you can name which line.

> Or can
> you name them?


Your mythical "last line" or
last natural" always has a successor in any non-WMytheological world
allowing induction.
--