Date: Jan 24, 2013 3:57 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: ZFC and God In article

<b54a6889-70b6-49c6-851a-56303d5be1da@d12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 24 Jan., 13:36, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:

>

> > Well, what you present below is *not* a proof of (*).

>

> That is wrong. You have no reason to believe that your definition of

> proof is correct or the only one.

We have lots of reason to beeive that anything WM presents as a proof

that is not copied from soemone more competent, is incorrect.

Some of those reasons are the obvious flaws in logic that WM is know for.

>

> >

> > Clearly, for all j, d(j) != t_j(j) and hence d != t_j for any j in

> > N.

> >

> > Is this what you mean up 'til now?

>

> Yes.

>

> >

> > > 4) Certainly you agree that, since all t_i = (t_i1, t_i2, ..., t_in)

> > > have only a finite, though not limnited, number n of digits, the

> > > diagonalization for every t_i yields a finite d_i =/= t_ii.

> > > (The i on the left hand side cannot be larger than the i on the right

> > > hand side. In other words, "the list" is a square. Up to every i it

> > > has same number of lines and columns. )

> >

> > No idea what you mean by the parenthetical remark.

>

> You will have have recognized that here the diagonal argument is

> applied. It is obvious that up to every line = column the list is a

> square.

Not at all. there is no reason why line n, for any n > 1, must be of

length >= n.

In decimal notation, one could start with 10 lines of length 1 followed

by 90 lines of length 2, followed by 900 lines of length 3, etc., and

never repeat a number.

> >

> > I do agree that d_i is defined for every i in N. In particular, (d_i)

> > is an infinite sequence of digits. Is this what you're claiming, too?

> > You've lost me. I don't know what you mean when you say, "everything

> > here happens among FISs." And I'm also puzzled by the meaning of the

> > next sentence.

>

> Every t_i is finite. Hence, in a square, if the width is finite, also

> the length must be finite.

But a "diagonal" need not be, and will not be finite.

> >

> > Here are some obvious things.

> >

> > d(j) is defined for every j in N.

> > d(j) != 0 and d(j) != 9 for any j in N.

> >

> > Hence the number d does not have a terminating decimal

> > representation.

>

> Neither the set of t_i does have a largest element. Nevertheless there

> is no t_i of actually infinite length.

> >

> > This looks like I do *not* agree with your claim that "d cannot be

> > longer than every t_i".

>

> A sequence of squares will never result in a square such that all

> sides are finite but the diagonal d is infinite. The overlap of d and

> t_i cannot be larger than t_i.

>

> In particular, what would be changed in the length of d if we admitted

> also non-terminating t_i (of infinite length)?

The diagonal is already required to be infinitely long, so its length

need not change.

--