```Date: Jan 17, 2013 4:07 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: WMatheology §Organization: Anon

In article <kd89vt\$ton\$1@news.m-online.net>, Ralf Bader <bader@nefkom.net> wrote:> Virgil wrote:> > > In article> > <e0aee8bf-b163-4cad-ab72-a2f200da9913@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,> >  WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> > > >> On 16 Jan., 20:16, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> >> > >> > > > > Your string can and will differ from the nth string. But there> >> > > > > will always an identical string be in the list> >> >> >> > > > Identical to what?> >> >> >> > > Identical to every initial segment of the anti-diagonal.> >> >> >> > If that alleged "identical string" were in some position n in the list> >> > then it will differ from any anti-diagonal at its own position n.> >> > >> There are infinitely many positions following upon every n. So if your> >> assertion is true for every n, then there are infinitely many> >> remaining for which it is not true. This holds for every n.> > > > My "assertion" is that for each n in |N, the antidiagonal differs from> > string n in place n.> > > > AS as the antidiagonal differing from a string in one place means that> > the antidiagonal differs from that string, we have that the antidagonal> > differs from EVERY string in al least one place per string, which is all> > that is needed> >> >> >> > So there is nowhere in the list that can occur without differing from> >> > an antidiagoal.> >> > >> Tell me the n which allows you to consider your check as completed.> > > > What makes you think there is a "last" one, when all of them are done?> > You shouldn't underestimate the weirdness of MÃ¼ckenheim's concoctions, and> also not overestimate the necessity to discuss this nonsense. "Infinite",> according to MÃ¼ckenheim, probably means "always finite, but continually> growing beyond any preassigned finite limitation". So, a MÃ¼ckenheimian> infinite decimal fraction has always a finite number of digits, but there> are some more the next time you look at it. Then, the decimal expansion of> 1/9 is still different from any one of the finite exoansions 0,1...1, but> another feat of MÃ¼ckenheimian genius is to confound the never-ending growth> process attributed to the expansion of 1/9 with the state it has reached at> the present moment. And this then does the feat and makes it impossible to> distinguish 1/9=0,111... from all of its finite approximations. This is> quite trivial and totally idiotic. But it is in perfect harmony with the> fraction of MÃ¼ckenheim's Collected Nonsense I happened to read.> > That there is a "last" one (for example the latest stage of such a> potentially infinite process if it ever were completed) probably is a kind> of imagined-with-the-inner-eye logical necessity for MÃ¼ckenheim. I> rememeber that as a little child I could not imagine how the sea looks;> that is, a surface of water stretching to the horizon without an opposite> shore that always popped up in my imaginations. That problem persisted as> long as I had been told about the sea but never seen it and vanished in the> moment I saw a picture of the situation. In a similar way it seems to be> impossible for MÃ¼ckenheim to grasp something actually (not in the> always-growing sense) countably infinite without a boundary at the far end.I am not so much concerned with the exact mature of MÃ¼ckenheims mucking up logic and mathematics a trying to show innocent others that it is only mucking up of logic and mathematics.--
```