Virgil
Posts:
4,479
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 203
Posted:
Jan 29, 2013 5:51 PM
|
|
In article
<e540b92e-6ff2-40e3-aa26-bcdf73b09853@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 29 Jan., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To summarize
> >
> > For every natural number, n, the antidiagonal,d, of a list L
> > is not equal to the nth line of L
> >
> > A statement WM has made.
> >
> > A) For every natural number n, P(n) is true.
> > implies
> > B) There does not exist a natural number n such that P(n) is
> > false.
> >
> > A statement WM has made.
> >
> > There does not exist a natural number n such that d is
> > equal to the nth line of L
> >
> > A statement WM disputes
>
> I do not dispute this statement (as I erroneously had said yesterday,
> when being in a hurry). I dispute that this statement implies the
> statement:
> d is not in one of all lines of the infinite list L and, hence, cannot
> be used to argue that cardinality is increased.
No one says any cardinality is increased, merely that some cardinalities
are larger than others.
> (The reson is that "all" is maeningless here.)
Inside WM's WMytheology , lots of things are meaningless that have
perfectly good meanings elsewhere.
>
> What about C1, C2, C3?
That is a finite sequence even in WMytheology.
>
> Regards, WM
--
|
|
