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.
--