|
|
Re: Matheology § 201
Posted:
Jan 27, 2013 5:23 PM
|
|
On Jan 27, 11:16 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Jan., 23:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Don't turn the words in my mouth.
You have apparently forgotten the
thread in which you agreed to this.
|
|
