On 4/6/2013 12:14 PM, WM wrote: > On 6 Apr., 19:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 6, 2:25 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >>> § 224 has become too long. There the following important result might >>> get lost. >> >>> I declare: I accept your stand point - or should I call it conjecture >>> or even theorem? >> >>> 1) We cannot remove every set E from D. Some elements will remain in D >>> \E since D is infinite and E is finite although no finite number of >>> elements and no last element can be determined. >> >> Note that E has not yet been specified. E can be any finite >> set. As soon as E is specified, a finite number of elements and >> a last element can be determined. > > But we don't specify E. Why should we specify E? Every specification > would show that we have superfluous lines left. Likewise we don't > specify what lines of the Cantor-list that are used for the anti- > diagonal. Do you see a difference?
That would be the difference between WM's world and the world in which mathematics is pursued under the assumption that linguistic reference is grammatically definite.