In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
It is only in corrupt and confused places like WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, that "for each x in A" does on include "for every x in A" and "for all x's in A". > > > 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.
It is certainly not in that "remaining part of the list" which follows after d1, d2 and d3. > > 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?
Until you tell us what "d" is, there is nothing to be seen. > > 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.
It could only fail to exist if there were some d_i for which there was no next or successor term. But that never happens. > > > 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".
That sort of confusion exists only in WM's mind.
The rest of us do not confuse the set of natutals with the set of cardinalities. --