Date: Mar 20, 2013 4:07 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 20 Mrz., 20:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <52fc6409-ea7d-4704-9782-6ba192770...@z3g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 20 Mrz., 14:00, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Mar 20, 1:17 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > <snip>

>

> > > > > So your proof that any two lines can be replaced

> > > > > by one line without changing the contents is irrelevant.

>

> > > > Since contents can only exist in lines, and since every line is

> > > > superset to all its predecessors, the proof is correct.

>

> > > The proof is irrelevant (it is, however, correct)

>

> > Nice to hear. Not that I had any doubt, but it is nice to hear that

> > you have no doubt too.

>

> > > since showing that lines are not needed for their

> > > contents does not show that the lines are not needed.

>

> > The lines were invented by myself solely for this purpose.

>

> Then the invention was futile for your purpose was not achieved, as at

> least infinitely many of those lines are necessary and have been proved

> to be.

Does every infinite set contain at least two elements?

Does every two-element-set of enumerated elements contain a first

element?

If you agree, name the first element of your infinite set. If you

don't agree, please disappear out of sci.logic.

>

>

>

> > The first question is:

> > Is the first line necessary to have the number 1 in the list.

>

> > Formulated somewhat more "mathematically":

> > Is the union of all lines different from the union of all lines except

> > the first one.

>

> Theorem: Every finite union of lines omits some naturals and every

> infinite union of lines includes all naturals

and probably also all quaternions and all race-horses, because

infinity is very powerful. It destroys ever sober thought and every

reasonable idea.

Regards, WM