On 12 Feb., 09:55, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <1e0deeb6-09db-46a2-8806-47123450d...@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 11 Feb., 22:47, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You do not see a contradiction in concluding > > > both > > > > everything that is in some line > > > of the list is in one line of the list. > > > > and > > > > there does not exist a natural number m > > > such that the potentially infinite sequence > > > d is equal to the potentially infinite > > > sequence given by the mth line. > > > Why do you distract the attention of the reader? > > Of course I see a contradiction. > > This contradiction has its origin in the assumption that a potentially > > infinite sequence is something that could be complete enough to be in > > a line or elsewhere. > > If the decimal expansion for 1/3 cannot be actually infinite, it can > only be because there is some FISON which indexes all its digits. > > > > > Everybody can see it clearly here: > > > 1 > > 1, 2 > > 1, 2, 3 > > ... > > > This list has everything that is in the diagonal in a line too. But > > nowhere we have a completed diagonal > > As soon as you include the "...", you have completed it.
That is the current matheological interpretation. But we see that this very interpretation leads to the contradiction that d is in the list and is not in the list.