In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2013 18:30:40 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 4:24:40 AM UTC-7, WM wrote: > > > > > every definable number is definable by a finite word that does not define > > > another number. > > > > > > But there is a Formal Definition. One that does result in a Contradiction. > > You just don't know, don't understand or refuse to acknowledge it. > > I don't need it.
Those who are unable or unwilling to use proper definitions in mathematics are necessarily putzers at mathematics. > > > > You are right, kind of, since FOL cannot "define" Definability. > > ZFC cannot define definability because that would result in a contradiction.
Aother of those claims that WM cannot prove.
> But you see that I have obtained a contradiction without defining "defining" > by a pure mathematical estimation of the cardinality of a subset of a > countable set.
We have often seen WM claiming things. We have yet to see him actually prove that ANY of those things hold anywhere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. --