Date: Jan 29, 2013 4:18 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 203

On Jan 29, 10:09 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 29 Jan., 09:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 9:33 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > "All" and "every" in impredicative statements about infinite sets.
>
> > > Consider the following statements:
>
> > > A) For every natural number n, P(n) is true.
> > > B) There does not exist a natural number n such that P(n) is false.
> > > C) For all natural numbers P is true.
>
> > > A implies B but A does not imply C.
>
> > Which is the point.  Even though A
> > does not imply C we still have
> > A implies B.
>
> > Let  L be a list
> >      d the antidiagonal of L
> >      P(n),  d does not equal the nth line of L
>
> > We have (A)
>
> >    For every natural number n, P(n) is true.
>
> > This implies (B)
>
> >   There does not exist a natural number n
> >   such that P(n) is false.
>
> > In other words, there is no line of L that
> > is equal to d.
>
> And how can C be correct nevertheless? Because "For all" is
> contradictory.

   B: There is no line of L that is equal to d

does not imply

   C: For all n, line n is not equal to d.

B correct does not mean "C correct nevertheless"