Date: Mar 5, 2013 5:13 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 5 Mrz., 01:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <81241eb4-af0d-46d8-922b-6bf1651b0...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 4 Mrz., 22:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > ANY infinite set of lines will suffice to contain all naturals, but no
> > > > > finite set of lines will suffice.

>
> > > > Name the first finite line that is necessary.
>
> > > Why should there be any one line necessary to the union of all of them
> > > when every line is only a subset of another line?

>
> > Exactly. Why should there infinitely many be necessary, if none is
> > necessary!

>
> Who says none are necessary? only WM!


I prove for every n that line n is not necessary. You should be able
to understand this proof.
>
> What those who are less confused than WM say is that a set of such lines
> being infinite is both necessary and sufficient to include every FIS.
>


Neither nor.
Proof, line n is not necessary, because line n+1 contains all FIS of
line n.
This holds for every n that you may claim necessary.
>
>

> > > And since ANY infinite set of lines is sufficient, and some infinite set
> > > of lines is necessary,

>
> > That should be proved and not only be asserted.
>
> Why bother with proofs when WM never proves but only asserts?


Can you understand the above proof?

> WM often claims to prove, but no one reading his claimed proofs believes
> it.


No matheologian may state that he understand, because he has to be
afraid to be called a crank and to be expelled from the community of
believers.
>
> > Name at least three lines of the asserted infinitely many.
>
> ANY three lines, as part of an infinite set of lines, will work.


No, the lines 1, 2, and 3 do not belong to a necessary set.

Regards, WM