In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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 --