On Feb 10, 9:55 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 10 Feb., 18:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 10:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 9 Feb., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > the arguments are yours > > > > > > and the statements are yours- > > > > > > Of course. But the wrong interpretation is yours. > > > > > How does one interpret > > > > we have shown m does not exist > > > > (your statement) > > > > > to mean that > > > > > m might still exist > > > > > ? > > > > TND is invalid in the infinite. > > > > Regards, WM > > > In Wolkenmeukenheim, we can have > > for a potentially infinite set > > > we know that x does not exist > > we don't know that x does not exist > > > true at the same time. > > > > Strange place Wolkenmuekenheim > > Is it so hard to conclude from facts without believing in matheology? > > The diagonal of the list > 1 > 11 > 111 > ... > > is provably not in a particular line.
and, according to WM, it is provable that it is not in any line.