In article <uqadne7aLr58IYTMnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 3:40 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article > > <email@example.com>, > > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > >> We show that the potentially infinite diagonal is in the list by > >> proving that every o_nn is in the list. And every o that is in the > >> list, is in some line of the list. And everything that is in some line > >> of the list is in one line of the list. > >> > >> Anything wrong with this conclusion? > > > > Every member of a sequence can be in a list of members of sequences > > without the sequence being in the list of sequences. > > > > Consider the list > > L1 = 1, L2 = 2, L3 = 3 > > Which does not contain D = 123 > > even though every member of D is in one of L1 or L2 or L3 > > > > WM's claim is no more true than claiming that the union of a family of > > sets must be one of the family being unioned. > > > > The union of all FISONs (finite initial segments of naturals) is not a > > FISON. > > > > Given a list of all FISONs, the union of them is not a FISON. > > Thus give a list of successively FISON-long strings, a string as long as > > their union cannot be one of them. > > > > Indeed. > > Whatever a "digit" in WMytheology is, I am unable to produce > them to WM's satisfaction (it remains undefined). > > By the same standard, is he not obligated to produce a list > of successively FISON-long strings which include a string as > long as their union? It has something to do with reality > and existence. That is how the matter has been so painstakingly > explained to me.
That's how I view it too, but WM seems to have some sort of mental astigmatism which prevents from seeing anything mathematical the way mathematicians do. --