```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 ableto 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 ofline 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 beafraid to be called a crank and to be expelled from the community ofbelievers.>> > 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
```