```Date: Mar 8, 2013 3:08 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 8 Mrz., 01:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> In article> <a4e8dab1-c681-48ca-bc5e-08ceba1ba...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,>>>>>>  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 ofnatural numbers has a first element.Name the first line.Or give up your claim.Or confess that your matheology is unmathematical.Regards, WM
```