In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Feb., 10:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 7:45 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > Matheology § 222 Back to the roots > > > > > Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d: > > > > Then, according to WM, d is not a line of the list. > > Do you agree that the logic applied in set theory does not make a > difference between "for every" and "for all"?
For each x, (x in S -> f(x)) For all x, (x in S -> f(x)) For every x, (x in S -> f(x)) all mean precisely the same thing.
> Can you explain why here, in this decisive case, a difference appears > nevertheless?
Because in you WMytheology strange things keep happening all the time. --