fom
Posts:
1,030
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted:
Feb 7, 2013 8:24 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
