In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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 --