```Date: Mar 11, 2013 5:40 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 11 Mrz., 21:22, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> l is a line of G and hence findable.> d_max is not findable and used ("for every n")l_max is used too ("for every line").>> Do you agree with the statement>> If G is a subset of lines of L> and G has a findable last element> then there is no line, l, in G> for which it is true that>     For every n, the nth>     FIS of d is contained in lI agree with this statement:For every findable line of L there is an identical findable FIS of thediagonal up to that line. And for every findable FIS of the diagonalthere is an identical line. Same holds for the diagonal 1, ..., max ofL and the last line 1, ..., max of L.I do not see any use in answering your questions which try to make adifference between changing the FIS of the diagonal and changing thedue line. When changing the FIS of the diagonal you speak of the samediagonal, but when changing the line, you speak of different lines.This is unjustified. In order to see it, write the list in the form1,2,3,...,maxwhere every line and the diagonal are written in one and the sameline. Does this answer your problems? If you have pleasure incontinuing to "prove" that there is a difference between line(s) anddiagonal, please go on, but leave me out of the play - since I do notsee a difference and will not change my mind in this respect.And a last remark: You will never succeed in proving that pot. inf. isthe same as act. inf, since your unsurmountable obstacle is therequirement that all natural numbers have to be in the list, butcannot be in one line but must be in one line.Meanwhile I am tired to answer your questions. 600 postings areenough, and there are many further §§ of matheology waiting to bepublished as soon as the current discussions will have ceased.Regards, WM
```