On 16 Jan., 08:44, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <0d0383dd-82ff-420c-a045-461df2411...@u19g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 15 Jan., 22:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Why can my string not differ from the nth finite string in your listing > > > of finite strings in that string's nth place, if that string has one, > > > and by having anything in my strng's nth place if your nth string is not > > > n places long? > > > I see no reason why my string cannot differ from each string in your > > > whole list of strings according to such a rule. > > > Your string can and will differ from the nth string. But there will > > always an identical string be in the list > > Identical to what?
Identical to every initial segment of the anti-diagonal. > > Every > > finite string means that there is no chance to construct something > > deviating from all. > > That only hold in WMytheology, if anywhere.
Why should a list of all finite strings be impossible? > > Thus WM's infinite list of finite sequences argument is just special > case of Cantor's infinite list of infinite sequences arguments, and thus > fails.
Of course any Cantor-list that contains all finite strings fails to produce a different finite string. The Binary Tree is an example. After all finite initial segmenst of paths there is no chance to differ by nodes. And the handwaving claim to "differ in the infinite" can be rejected by stating that in mathematics there is no chance to differ in the infinite.