In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb., 22:43, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <2199d024-064f-4369-b38d-f1d1cdf2c...@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 17 Feb., 20:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 6:49 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > ards, WM > > > > > > Ok we have WM statement 1. > > > > > > There is a line l such that > > > > l and d are coFIS. > > > > > There is no d! > > > There is for every FIS of d a FIS of a line. > > > > If there were no d, then WM would not keep talkimg as if there were one. > > There is no actually infinite d.
And there is no finite diagonal, d, at least anywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim, for a list of lines whose nth line is of length n and for which there is no last line.
And outside of Wolkenmuekenheim "INfinite" merely means not finite.
And outside of Wolkenmuekenheim one satisfactory definition of finiteness of a set is that a finite set does not allow any injection from itself to any of its proper subsets.
And outside Wolkenmuekenheim, one cannot speak of sets whose membership is ambiguous. so that the oxymoron "potentially infinite set" is nonsense. Sets are actual or nonsensical.
So a set which is not finite is either infinite or not a set. And a list which is not finite is either infinite or not a list.
Thus WM is claiming no d at all. whereas outside Wolkenmuekenheim, non-finite d's for non-finite lists of ever increasingly long lines is de rigueur. > > > > On the contrary! For every natural number the n-th line and d_1, ..., > > > d_n are coFIS. > > > > Not in this world! > > 123...n and 123...n have the same FISs.