Date: Mar 7, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
William Hughes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:39 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > To talk of d without further specification is silly.
> WM: There does not exist
> (in the sense of not findable)
> a natural number m such that
> the mth line of L is coFIS with
> No mention of the state of d. So I guess
> we can talk of whether d is coFIS with
> a line without mentioning
> the state of d.
> Do you agree with the statement
> g is not coFIS with d.
If it makes sense outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, WM will not agree with it.