Date: Mar 5, 2013 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 5 Mrz., 01:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> 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.
Proof, line n is not necessary, because line n+1 contains all FIS of
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
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
> > 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.