In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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.
Scientific discourse is irrelevant to the majority of mathematics, that majority which is not subject to validation by comparison to physical evidence.
> Further discussion according to those "rules" is wasted time.