In article <97dc7396-7a6e-4bd1-99aa-d627b00113b5@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 13 Feb., 19:00, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 13, 8:54 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Feb., 20:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your first claim is that there is a line l such that > > > > d and l are equal as potentially infinite sequences. > > > > > For every n this is true. > > > > Your other claim is that there is no line > > l such that d and l are equal as potentially infinite > > sequences. > > > > Do you deny you have claimed this? > > No, of course not! Why should I do so? > You cannot discern that two potentially infinity sequences are equal.
Speak for yourself, WM. Others are not so self-handicapped as you are. > When will you understand that such a result requires completeness?
If it cannot be done, then induction must be impossible, too, as induction allows such proofs.
> But > potentially infinite sequences are not complete. You can only *for > every n* determine whether identity is true.
Potentially infinite sequences in that sense exist only in WMytheology. > > *And that is true in the list!* For every n there is a FIS of d and a > line l such that both are identical.
That can be achieved by having each element of the relevant alphabet appear as a separate line.
For the binary alphabet, {"0","1"}, that only requires that both "0" and "1" be lines of the list.
> This follows from the undisputed > fact that the diagonal cannot stretch farther than any line.
The only place it is "undisputed" is in Wolkenmuekenheim.
And no one but WM ever visits there. > > Here is no complete list, no complete diagonal and no line containing > a complete diagonal. > > 1 > 12 > 123 > ... > > But for every n the FIS(n) of d is in line(n).
