On Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:03:38 AM UTC-7, WM wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2013 19:34:46 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > > Are you saying: > > > That can d can be unequal from all entries of the list, but all the F(IS(d_n) can't. ? >
No, I am saying d IS equal. I am not saying Can Be.
> > > If so, this is the case. > > You used an existential statement, namely: > > There exists a certain property of d that cannot be derived from any d_n. > > What is the reason for this strange behaviour? > > Is The answer: > > For every entry l_n we can find a place wjere it differs from d? > > That is not convincing because beyond every l_n there are nearly all remaining l_n following. > > Is the answer: In matheology we simply believe that? > > Not convincing too. > > So there remains as only alternative, as far as I see (perhaps you have another explanation): > > d behaves different from all FIS(n) because it contains more than all FIS(n). That is d_oo.n >
Actually it's just d.
> So you have quatifier exchange. oo is larger than all n. You need it because you know that the property to contain only more than every FIS is satisfied by most FIS and is obviously not enough to explain the asserted behaviour. >
The Real Number d is Not equal to any FIS of d. That all we need.
However, the point of the post is Not the Provable Uncountability of the Real Numbers. It is how about you cannot parse Logic Statements.