|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 4:33 AM
|
|
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.
Regards, WM
|
|
