On 2/10/2013 2:55 PM, WM 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. > > 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.
Please prove using the format
statement:reason
in demonstration from a formal definition of the diagonal.
