On 7 Feb., 14:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 2/7/2013 2:02 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Feb., 08:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > >> In article > >> <bbdf841d-effe-48c8-b938-0825f9e82...@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > >> 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: > > >>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). > >>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. > >>> For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating. > > >> Even if there is last a_n and a last a_nn, n, the d_m's can still go > >> on without end.. > > >>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). > >>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. > >>> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating. > > >> While (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) may be terminating, > >> d_1, d_2, ..., d_n, ... need *not* ever terminate. > > > The diagonal argument includes merely all (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). > > There is no plurality in the individual number > generated in the construction of the argument. > > There is only an infinite plurality in the number > of possible demonstrations in which that number can > be used as a counter-example. > > Now that I understand the nature of your defect > I will help to correct it.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
