```Date: Mar 13, 2013 5:41 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Mar 13, 6:33 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 13 Mrz., 17:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> > On Mar 13, 5:37 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:>> > > On 13 Mrz., 13:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > <snip>>> > > > If you wish to contest this, use my words not> > > > yours  (e.g.  I have never said "The list contains more> > > > numbers than fit into a single line",  I have said> > > > "There is no line in the list which contains every> > > > number in the list".)>> > > Correct. The list has more numbers than a single line has. Since every> > > number that is in the list, must be in at least one line, this implies> > > that the numbers are in more than one line.>> > To be precise, a set of lines, say K, that contains all the numbers> > contains at least two lines.>> In actual infinity, this is not avoidable.> We note: At least two lines belong to the set that contains all> numbers. We call these lines necessary lines.Why, when they are clearly not necessary?Let J be a set of the lines of L with nofindable last line.  At least two linesbelong to J.  Are any lines of J necessary?
```