On 4/11/2013 3:26 PM, WM wrote: > On 11 Apr., 22:12, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > >> >>> In a list containing all rational numbers, the counter-argument can be >>> written: >>> For every n: (d_1, ..., d_n) does not differ from infinitely many >>> entries (qk1, ..., qkn) with k > n. >> >> As stated, this is true. >> >> As stated, this is irrelevant. >> >> >>> Why should the "for all n" only in one case be exhaustive? >> >> Universal quantification is always arbitrary. > > Maintain your arbitrary given cases, that kill every scientific > discourse. > Further discussion according to those "rules" is wasted time. > My mistake.