|
|
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted:
Feb 7, 2013 3:00 AM
|
|
On 7 Feb., 08:33, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c90e5c01-f477-420d-89c1-1ad75c5bf...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 7 Feb., 05:10, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
> > > The proof requires a presupposition of
> > > individuated numbers named using a consistent naming algorithm
> > > based on a finite set of sequentially ordered symbols.
>
> > Individuation by x without any means to determine the individuating x
> > is not individuation.
>
> > You are very good in parroting undigested readings about logic.
> > Now try to learn to apply the basics.
>
> WM is hardly in a position to carp over other people's parroting
> "undigested reading about logic" or alleged" misunderstandings of the
> basics".
If you are better, then explain your statement please:
> What Cantor proved was that no list of accessible real numbers
> (accessible because listable) can include all accessible numbers,
> because any such list itself proves the existence of numbers not listed.
What does that mean for the set of accessible numbers?
Regards, WM
|
|
