In article <c7ea35ae-26f5-464b-8155-959befbfed3e@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 25 Feb., 16:11, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We both agree > > > > There does not exist an m > > such that the mth line > > of L is coFIS with the diagonal > > (here we interpret "There does > > not exist" to mean "we cannot find"). > > And again you interpret as *the* diagonal the actual infinity of *all* > its elements.
That is what it is everywhere outside WMytheology. > > *Every* FIS of the diagonal is a line.
Granted, and every line is merely a FIS of the diagonal, not the whole.
> What we cannot find is a last line and is a last FIS of the diagonal.
Because they do not exist. Those like WM, who look for them may as easily find fairies at the bottom of their gardens.
> *Both* are unfindable. Therefore it is highly biased to talk about > *the* diagonal.
Outside of WMytheology, "THE Diagonal" of such a list can be unambiguously defined.
Inside of WMytheology, nothing seems to be unambiguously defined. > > > > Indeed if we throw findable in > > we agee with a lot of stuff. > > > > There is no findable largest natural > > number. > > > > There is no ball with a findable index > > in the vase. > > And there is no findable set of natural numbers (remember, we cannot > use "all natural numbers" and related sets) that would require more > than one line.
