Date: Mar 20, 2013 5:26 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/20/2013 3:07 PM, WM wrote:
> 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.


Why should he?

This is sci.logic. It is not alt.WMytheology.

You seem confused about whom is being what.