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 no

findable last line. At least two lines

belong to J. Are any lines of J necessary?