On 9 Dez., 10:16, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > See above. People have not taken into account that only a *defined* > > sequence gives a defined diagonal. There are only countably many > > finite definitions. > > Again: none of the paths in such a list of paths need be defined beyond > a finite number of places in order to define an anti-diagonal provably > not in that list.
Wrong. The list is infinite. If only a finite part of the list can be excluded to contain the anti-diagonal, then nothing yet has been proven. This holds for every finite part.