```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.
```