Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 210
Posted:
Feb 7, 2013 3:12 AM
|
|
In article
<71357c20-7f5c-44f9-8479-34f5f093b7ac@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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?
While any accessible number can appear in a list, they cannot all appear
in the same list.
>
> Regards, WM
--
|
|
