|
|
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
|
|
