```Date: Mar 20, 2013 4:27 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <a692afc1-337d-47f2-9b7f-2e6f838ff3d0@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 20 Mrz., 19:44, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > > > Either there is a list that contains everyting that the list contins> > > in two or more lines.> >> > Since each line has a successor  line and is a proper subset of that> > successor line, the only "escape" is to have a nonempty set of lines> > with no last line.> > What should a missing last line help?  A nonempty set of lines with no last line shows, among other things, that the empty set of lines will not work.>  As it is not present in the> list, it cannot change the contents of the list.On the contrary, a nonempty set of lines WITH a last line necessarily omits all naturals not in that last linebut a nonempty set of lines WITHOUT a last line doesn't omit the naturals of any line.> But every line, that> is not the last line and, therefore, is not missing, can be made> missing without changing the contents of the list.It is still both necessary and sufficient for a set of line/FISONs to contain all naturals that that set b infinite, thus be both not empty and not have either a last line or largest FISON.> > > > Since contents can only exist in lines, and since every line is> > > superset to all its predecessors, the proof is correct. It shows that> > > actual infinity is unreasonable.> >> > It does not show any such thing> > You could as well refrain from declaming assertions.Why must we refrain from doing what WM is notorious for doing? Here is> sci.logic, not spec.tacle. Wm often makes spectatular claims then spectacularly fails to justify them. Like his claim to a linear map from the set of binary sequences through the reals to the set of all paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree.--
```