Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 201
Replies: 32   Last Post: Jan 28, 2013 2:26 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 William Hughes Posts: 2,330 Registered: 12/7/10
Re: Matheology § 201
Posted: Jan 27, 2013 5:02 PM

On Jan 27, 10:39 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Jan., 21:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Jan 27, 6:46 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Jan., 18:32, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 27, 6:05 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > >..the diagonal
> > > > > cannot differ from all lines
> > > > > (it differs from every line, though).

>
> > > > The fact that the diagonal differs from every line is
> > > > enough to show (induction) that the diagonal is not
> > > > equal to any line in the list.

>
> > > No.
>
> > Let the antidiagonal be d and the nth line be l(n)
>
> > We know that for each n in |N, d is not equal to l(n)
>
> > You have agreed that this implies
>
> > There is no m in |N such that d equals l(m)
>
> No.

You contradict yourself. You have agreed
that if P(n) is true for every n then
the is no n such that P(n) is false.

(E.g. For every n, n has a prime decomposition
therefore there is no n that does not have
a prime decomposition)