On 10 Jan., 23:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> What he, and I, find incomprehensible is why > "the anti-diagonal can at no finite position > deviate from every entry of the list" > is presumed to imply > "That means it can never deviate from every entry."
At no finite position means never because there are no infinite positions, in mathematics. > > What prevents the diagonal from differing from entry n at position n, > and thus differing from each entry?
Position n is a finite position. But it is clear that for every finite position there is a double of the diagonal. > > That is the way Cantor described it, and nothing WM has said shows why > Cantor was not correct.
The first halt sentence is correct. The second shows your lack of insight: Not at a finite plave means "never". It does not mean "in some infinity" although matheologians believe in finished infinity.