|
|
Re: Matheology § 203
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 4:38 PM
|
|
On Jan 30, 10:24 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 30 Jan., 22:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 6:06 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 30 Jan., 12:32, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 30, 12:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 30 Jan., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Summary. We have agreed that
>
> > > > > > For a potentially infinite list L, the
> > > > > > antidiagonal of L is not a line of L.
>
> > > > Do you agree with the statement
>
> > > > For a potentially infinite list, L,
> > > > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > > > the antidiagonal of L is not a line
> > > > of L
>
> > > Yes, of course. We have a collection of which we can keep a general
> > > overview. And in finite sets (potential infinity is nothing but finity
> > > without an upper threshold) "for every" means the same as "for all".
> > > There is no place to hide.
>
> > So now we have
>
> > For a potentially infinite list, L,
> > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > the antidiagonal of L is not a line
> > of L
>
> > Can a potentially infinite list, L,
> > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > have the property that every
> > potentially infinite 0/1 sequence
> > is a line of L?
>
> Potential infinity is the opposite of completeness like "infinite" is
> the opposite of "finished". So *every* line number n would not imply
> *all* possible line numbers of the set |N defined by AxInf.
This does not answer the question. Please answer the question.
|
|
