|
Re: Matheology § 238
Posted:
Apr 11, 2013 5:15 AM
|
|
On 11 Apr., 09:47, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 4/11/2013 1:49 AM, WM 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. > > That is exactly what was said. > Not in matheology. Seems that Virgil objected to "all n" by only "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? > > {<d_1, ..., d_n> | n in |n} > > {d_n | n in |n} > > They look like different sets to me.
They are different sets, but that is irrelevant. > > So the question is senseless.
No, you should have your optics cleaned, or better that what is appended. Try to understand the difference between sequences and sets.
Regards, WM
|
|