On 8 Feb., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > More WM logic > > From > > i. For every natural number n, d > is not in the nth line of L
You should distinguish between your d and my d and between your list and my list. But you are clever enough to understand that such a decision made with mathematical precision immediately would kill set theory. > > ii. i. implies that there is no > natural number m such that > d is the mth line of L
Your d(actual) is nowhere. Of course it is then in no list. Nevertheless it could be claimed to be in list(actual) because there is no list actual. Its assumption, like every false assumption, allows every conclusion. My d(potential) is not in any line of the list because it is never completed but every line is completed. Nevertheless my d(potential) is in the list because the list is not completed.
My argument is this - and it is obvious: There is no part of d(potential) that is surpassing every line ogf the list.
If you want to criticise this argument, you are invited to do so. But most probably you will prefer to clown around. I will no longer answer to any clownery but only to arguments with respect to these targets:
A) There is no part of d(potential) that is surpassing every line of the list.
B) Try to apply logic without any semantic interpretation: 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. 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.