Date: Mar 10, 2013 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 12:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 12:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 10 Mrz., 11:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com>
> > > > On Mar 10, 10:40 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > But in every case we know that there is a line of the list that is
> > > > > identical with the FIS of d, both existing or not existing yet.
> > > > However this is not a findable line.-
> > > It is not a fixable line, say.
> > [note on teminology. "Findable" is your term. You use
> > it when interpreting the very important "does not exist"
> > If you will stipulate to
> Not important.
> > We now have
> > There does not exist
> > (in the sense of findable)
> > a natural number m such that
> > such that the mth line of L
> > is coFIS to (d)
> The number m = max is not findable or fixable.
> Note: This does not imply that d has more elements than every line.
> L is coFIS to d, this means L_max = d_1, ..., d_max
Except that only in the wilds of WMytheology do either L or d have a max.
Everywhere else but in WMytheology , both what WM calls L_max and calls
d_max have successors which out-max them.