Date: Mar 10, 2013 4:58 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<01c1cb8b-0234-4238-90bf-b105202865fd@w14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.

--