On Mar 2, 11:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 2 Mrz., 19:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > We both agree that there is a natural number > > valued function of time, m(t), such that > > at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing > > line which contains all existing FIS of d. > > We each believe that our m(t) is not constant. > > > We also agree that there does not exist > > (in the sense of not able to find) a > > natural number n such that the > > nth line of L is coFIS with the > > diagonal. > > > I find your characterization of this > > situation as "there is a natural > > number m such that the mth line > > of L is coFIS with the diagonal" > > since there do not exist more than m FIS of the diagonal. > > > to be silly. > > Because you do not yet fully understand potential infinity: There do > not exist more than m FIS of the diagonal.
Oh, I understand all right. It is just that I think calling m (which cannot be a findable natural number and behaves exactly like m(t)) a natural number is silly.
> > Question: Do you find your characterization of the situation in > finished infinity not silly? Don't you see a mathematical > contradiction of the sentence: There are all FIS of d in the list but > not in one single line? >
Not at all. Clearly there are all FIS of d in one single line iff there is a last line. I do not consider the sentence "There is no last line" to be a contradiction.
