Date: Mar 10, 2013 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 10 Mrz., 01:42, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 9 Mrz., 21:07, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > Of course the lines
> > > > from 1 to n are completely irrelevant.
> > > There is no way to have a line n+1 without having lines 1 to n preceding
> > > it, so that no line is irrelevant in determining the position of the
> > > lines following it.
> > Wrong. Here is a set that starts at line 4
> > 1,2,3,4
> > 1,2,3,4,5
> > 1,2,3,4,5,6
> > ...
> > 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
> In your example above, the 1st line would be 1,2,3,4.
> One does not count as if they were there lines which are not there.
If you mean yourself by "one" then you may be right.
But that is of little importance for myself and the general opinion
with respect to the list under discussion for about 500 postings,