On 11 Feb., 22:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > Only *if the complete existence of the not completely existing > > diagonal d is assumed*, it would be necessary to have it in the list > > and (since every line of the list contains everything that is > > contained by its predecessors) to have it in a line of the list. But > > obviously a potentially infinite diagonal does not exist completely > > (as the potentially infinite list does not exist completely). > > > So why should anything be withdrawn? > > The notion of potential infiniteness should be withdrawn as it is > incompatible with the notion of "set".
The notion of "infinite set" should be withdrawn as incompatible with logic.
> One cannot have a set whose membership is only potentially determined.
Name a part of the diagonal which is not in the list. Name two elements of the diagonal, indexed with natural numbers, which are not in one single line.
