In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 16 Dez., 22:41, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Dec 16, 10:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Undefined words do not belong to a language, not even in set > > > theory, do they? But such a book of definitions would be a list of > > > uncountably many words, i.e., a list of unlistable elements, i.e., a > > > contradiction, no? > > > > This is all irrelevant. I am definitely correct in saying that there > > are uncountable languages, > > So you believe that there are languages that nobody can speak, nobody > can understand and nobody can learn. Not even Cantor's transfinite set > of angels. But why do you call that a language? > > And you think that you are definitely correct and people will accept > your ideas as languages - even people who live outside of mad houses? > I do not believe that.
Why not when you so frequently outdo the red queen? --