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 of

natural numbers has a first element.

Name the first line.

Or give up your claim.

Or confess that your matheology is unmathematical.

Regards, WM