```Date: Mar 20, 2013 10:22 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <99e95b75-d68a-4aab-9173-a638be0afffb@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 20 Mrz., 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > In article> > <f9fdc960-d9af-4efe-9e88-4ad45e2e8...@bs5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,> >> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> > > On 20 Mrz., 21:11, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> >> > > > While WM may not be aware of the fine points of English, when he speaks> > > > of "THE last line", in standard English it suggest that there is a last> > > > line.> >> > > Can a well-defined list have more than one last line?> >> > It can have less than one last line!> > Then *the* last line is missing, not *a* last line as one of many. Only if there was once a last line that has gone missing,If there never was one there is no "the last line" to have gone missing. > >> > Both the empty set> > sic: the empty set, not an empty set"The" empty set is a subset of all sets including itself and a proper subset of all other sets, and , of course, there can only be one empty set.> > > of lines/FISONs and every infinite set of> > lines/FISONs when ordered by inclusion have less than one last line,> > i.e., no last line at all.> > Therefore all can be removed without removing the asserted contents,> namely the complete set |N.Only in WMytheology.Outside of WMytheology, as long as one leaves infinilyy many lines/FISONs, one still has all naturals > > Regards, WM--
```