```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 firstelement?If you agree, name the first element of your infinite set. If youdon'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 naturalsand probably also all quaternions and all race-horses, becauseinfinity is very powerful. It destroys ever sober thought and everyreasonable idea.Regards, WM
```