Date: Mar 20, 2013 5:08 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<d30398b4-83e6-4da0-a2d9-6ceacb35d55e@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 20 Mrz., 21:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ee68a743-df09-4920-bb5d-00ac1c53b...@x15g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 20 Mrz., 20:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 20, 4:24 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I show that every line, that is not the last line, is not needed.
> >
> > > > Nope.  You show that it is not necessary for its contents.
> > > > This is not the same as not needed.

> >
> > > Agreed:
> > > I show that every line, that is not the last line, is not needed to
> > > remain in the list in order to have its contents in the list.
> > > Agreed?

> >
> >  While you can show that any line that is not A last line is
> > dispensible, you cannot show it  for every line that is not THE last
> > line, since "THE last line" implies a condition contrary to fact.


> > And you believe that?

Yes!

> You write really as if you would believe in the
> consistency of my proof.


If what is alleged by WM to be a proof is authored by WM, I always doubt
its consistency, and am almost always right to do so.
--