In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr., 23:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > For all n is not for all n? d has more digits than all? > > > My proof is valid for all n. > > > > Your argument only holds for finite sequences, > > for *all* finite sequences. > > > but any anti-diagonal, by > > not being a finite sequence, is exempt. > > So for all n: d_1, ..., d_n covers less digits than for all n: d_n?
Only in WOLKENMUEKENHEIM.
In Wolkenmuekenheim the distinction between finite and not finite is indeterminate.