On 2/7/2013 2:00 AM, WM 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?
It means that objects are not their representations.
In WMythology, however, objects are their misrepresentations.