In article <f4abb19e-0ec6-4eb1-b5b0-6baafdee37bf@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 24 Jun., 21:26, "Mike Terry" > <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > > There is a starting list L0 and many following lists. During > construction step n+1 the list is > > An > ... > L0 > > and has an antidiagonal.
Not as listed, it doesn't. As listed it is a finite list with different types of elements.
If the list were, for example, An,...,A0, L0.0, L0.1, L0.2, ..., THEN it would have an antidiagonal, but only lists of elements all of the same type, such as all infinite binary sequences or all reals, can have antidiagonals, at least according to any standard definition/construction of an antidiagonal. > > The antidiagonals of all these lists are countable but canot be > written in form of a list (it does not matter if in a separate list or > in a list with spaces or else), because, if written in form of some > list, they would yield an antidiagonal that was not in the list.
That presumes that one can include all reals in a list. But Onoe of the antidiagonal proofs proves that wrong, and all of WM's weaseling won't invalidate that proof.
Besides which { L.0, A0. L0.2, A1, L0.2, A2, ...} is clearly a listing of what WM has just said couldn't be listed.
So WM is not only wrong, he is stupidly wrong.
Hence > all antidiagonals of this process, though countable, cannot be written > in a list.
