In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb., 22:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We can say "every line has the property that it > > > > does not contain every initial segment of s" > > > > There is no need to use the concept "all". > > > > > Yes, and this is the only sensible way to treat infinity. > > > > So now we have a way of saying > > > > s is not a line of L > > > > e.g. 0.111... is not a line of > > > > 0.1000... > > 0.11000... > > 0.111000.... > > ... > > > > because every line, l(n), has the property that > > l(n) does not contain every initial > > segment of 0.111... > > But that does not exclude s from being in the list. What finite > initial segment (FIS) of 0.111... is missing? Up to every line there > is some FIS missing, but every FIS is with certainty in some trailing > line. And with FIS(n) all smaller FISs are present. But with no FIS are all present. > > > Is there a sensible way of saying > > s is a line of L ? > > There is no sensible way of saying that 0.111... is more than every > FIS.
How about "For all f, (f is a FIS) -> (length(0.111...) > length(f))" .
It makes perfect sense to those not permanently encapsulated in WMytheology. --