On Feb 5, 3:05 pm, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote: > On 05/02/2013 7:17 AM, William Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 10:38 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> So "there is no list of X" is > >> true for every potentially infinite set. > > > And so it goes. Now there is no list > > of |N. > > > So ends this round. It has > > taken 100 posts to get WM to > > admit that different potentially > > infinite sets have different > > listability. It would take another > > 100 posts to get him to admit > > that he admitted it. > > > We now know > > that the potentially infinite > > series 0.111... > > > is not a single line of the list > > > 0.1000... > > 0.11000... > > 0.111000... > > ... > > > More importantly, we have learned that > > we can use induction to show "every" > > and that "every n -> P(n)" is equivalent > > to "there is no m such that ~P(m)" > > So we do not need to resort to "all" > > to show something does not exist. > > One wonders what you have gained by all this. Mueckenheim clearly has > not learned, so why do you bother?
You have clearly read at least some of the posts. Why do you bother?