On 22/04/2013 4:18 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > WM <email@example.com> wrote: > >> On 21 Apr., 22:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >> >>>> Consider the representation as a table >>> >>>> 1 >>>> 2, 1 >>>> 3, 2, 1 >>>> ... >>>> n, ..., 2, 1 >>>> ... >>> >>>> All initial segments of |N (including |N itself) are in the first >>>> column, but not in the lines of the table? >> >> Can you name an n that is in a column but not in a horizontal line? > > For any given horizontal line, I can. > >> If not, why do you believe that the comlums contain more than every >> horzontal line? > > Why do you misrepresent what I said so obviously? > > Given any column and any line, > that column contains numbers not in that line. > > But the union of the set of all columns and the union of the set of all > lines are the same. > > >> >> And you have not shown how it is possible to have more naturals in a >> column than in every horizontal line. Nevertheless you claim to have >> shown that erroneously. > > No! You claim erroneously that I have claimed it. > But it is your quantifier dyslexia at work again. > > What I actually claimed is that there are more naturals in ANY ONE > column than in ANY ONE line, but did NOT claim more naturals in all > columns collectively than in all lines collectively. > > It is a distinction that is important in mathematics, even if habitually > ignored in WMytheology.
"Habitually ignored" is obviously the wrong phrase here, as it is pretty clear that he is wired in such a way that he cannot recognize any other way. "Congenitally misapprehended" would be my suggestion.