Date: Mar 20, 2013 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> > 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