Am Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2013 10:13:59 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist:
> Remember, before we write a Proof, we must first formalize the statement. This allows to understand clearly what the Natural Language statement actually means.
No. Every formal particle has to be defined in normal language. Every composition of formal particles can be defined in normal language too. The language does not matter at all. But normal language often exhibits nonsensical approaches in formal language like the confusion of all and every. >
> Now, please tell me whose Methods the Quantifier Confusion resides in?
For every n in |N: The FIS d_1, d_2, ..., d_n is in the remaining part of the (rationals-complete) list You agree.
d_1, d_2, d_3, ... is in the remaining part of the list. You do not agree.
That means that d has the power to deviate from all entries of the list that none of the strings d_1, d_2, ..., d_n has. You see?
So you have "proved" that d contains more than all d_n, (which is the same as to contain more than all strings d_1, ..., d_n). You don't call the difference d_oo, but you "proved" that it exists.
The quantifier confusion is this: "For every natural index there is a larger one" has been inverted to "there is an index oo larger than every natural".