Date: Jan 17, 2013 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: WMatheology � 191
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 17 Jan., 01:21, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e0aee8bf-b163-4cad-ab72-a2f200da9...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueck...@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.
> Yes, but obviously it is not for all entries of the list.
It is not at all obvious that what is done for all entries in the list
is NOT done for all entries in the list.
> every possible finite string is already there.
Then EVERY infinite string will differ from every finite string, at
least outside the idiocy of WMytheology where infinite strings are all
> This shows that actual
> infinity is self-contradictory
Not at all!
It merely shows that what goes on in the wild, wild world of WMytheology