In article <d480f2f1-3097-4324-b351-fb796ceb418b@y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 28 Jun., 11:07, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote: > > On 2010-06-28, Peter Webb <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > This occurs in step 4. You state we can "identify an element d of S > > > that is on the diagonal". Unless the list is explicitly defined, you > > > can't "identify" the digit in position x. > > > > See Owen? I told you he wouldn't be able to ignore the informal fluff > > phrase "we can identify", and so fails to interpret it correctly. > > > > Mathematically, it means nothing more than "there exists". > > And mathematically "there exists" means nothing.
Maybe that is the case in WM's world, but it is quite different in everyone else's world.
