```Date: Mar 7, 2013 3:44 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 7 Mrz., 21:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > > > Here we are asking what lines of the list> > > > 1> > > > 1, 2> > > > 1, 2, 3> > > > ...> > > > are required to contain all natural numbers. The first three lines are> > > > definitively not required. And every mathematician can show that no> > > > line is required,>> > > While no particular line is required, WM is falsely implying hat no> > > lines are required at all, whereas infinitely many lines are required.>> > Every line that is not the last line, is not required, because the> > next one contributes all that the line could contribute.>> Since there is no last line, what you are saying is nonsense.Try to think like a human being called sapiens sapiens should do:Can a line that is not the last line, i.e., that has a follower, cansuch a line be required in any respect?If there is no last line, then no line is required. This is a fact,easy to prove. Therefore this is not nonsense. The consequence is thatthe complete set |N is nonsense.> > Please explain how lines that obviously are not required should be> > required.>> Where have I ever said that any one particular line was required?You said infinitely many lines were required to contain |N. But sinceat most one of them is the last line, infinitely many of the linesclaimed by you are *not* required.Regards, WM
```