On 2/10/2013 4:16 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article > <3a8b891b-172f-415f-b4f6-34f988abae5d@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > WM <mueckenh@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. >> >> 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. >> But the diagonal is in the list, since it is defined in the list only. >> Nothing of the diagonal can be proven to surpass the lines and rows of >> the list. > > It is not that the diagonal "surpasses" any particular line, it is > merely that an appropriately defined "diagonal" is different from each > and every particular line, i.e., does not appear as any line among the > lines being listed.
Yes. And the scare quotes are nice.
The problem with singular terms means that "diagonal" is, in fact, a plurality of acts of definition.
