Am Montag, 9. Dezember 2013 18:59:11 UTC+1 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > To understand where WM is coming from one must note > > that for WM the statement > > > > for all n in N, p(n) is not true > > > > does not imply > > > > there is no n in N such that p(n) is true, > > > > but only that > > > > one cannot find an n in N such that p(n) is true. > > > > So for WM: > > > > If L is a constructable list of constructable 0/1 lists > > then there is a constructable 0/1 list, y, such that one cannot > > find a n in N with y the nth element of L. > > > > Most people would then argue, if n existed then we could find it, > > so the fact that we cannot find it means that n does not exist. > > > > WM does not agree with the last step.
And I can tell you why:
For every rational p/q we can find a digit where it differs from the antidiagonal d. But what means "every rational"? p/q belongs to a finite set of rationals with a sum = <(p+q). p/q has finitely many predecessors but is followed by infinitely many rationals p'/q' with p'+ q' being finite but larger than p + q.