Date: Mar 8, 2013 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 8 Mrz., 01:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > 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.
> No particular line is required,
So we can exclude every line.
> but that is not the same as saying that
> no lines are required.
The set of lines is ordered by the natural numbers. Every set of
natural numbers has a first element.
Name the first line.
Or give up your claim.
Or confess that your matheology is unmathematical.