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, can

such 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 that

the 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 since

at most one of them is the last line, infinitely many of the lines

claimed by you are *not* required.

Regards, WM