Date: Jan 25, 2013 2:18 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

In article 
<b443b0b0-2e03-4179-ab2f-dec89805d714@u16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 25 Jan., 09:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> > > > > Then ponder a while about the following sequence
> >
> > > > > d
> >
> > > > > d1
> > > > > 2d

> >
> > > > > d11
> > > > > 2d2
> > > > > 33d

> >
> > > > > and so on. In every square there are as many d's as lines. The same
> > > > > could be shown for the columns.

> >
> > > > Yes, in this sequence of three squares, what you say is true.
> >
> > > Is there a first square where my observation would fail?
> >
> > Since you claim every line is necessarily finite, but the number of
> > lines is not, there will be a number of lines greater than the number of
> > digits in your finite first line.

>
> In an ordered set like the sequence of squares above, we have for
> every subset a first element. If you claim to know a square that is
> not a square, then there must be a first square that is not a square.


If n is the number of digits in the first entry to your list, then you
have no more than n such squares as that first entry will be too short
for any more.


> Or should the set of squares that are not squares be empty?

There can be as many "squares" as digits in the first line, but no more.

So once again WM's arguments fall flat of their own ungainly weight.
--