Date: Jan 29, 2013 5:51 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article 
<e540b92e-6ff2-40e3-aa26-bcdf73b09853@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 29 Jan., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To summarize
> >
> >   For every natural number, n, the antidiagonal,d, of a list L
> >   is not equal to the nth line of L
> >
> > A statement WM has made.
> >
> >    A) For every natural number n, P(n) is true.
> >    implies
> >    B) There does not exist a natural number n such that P(n) is
> > false.
> >
> > A statement WM has made.
> >
> >    There does not exist a natural number n such that d is
> >    equal to the nth line of L
> >
> > A statement WM disputes

>
> I do not dispute this statement (as I erroneously had said yesterday,
> when being in a hurry). I dispute that this statement implies the
> statement:
> d is not in one of all lines of the infinite list L and, hence, cannot
> be used to argue that cardinality is increased.


No one says any cardinality is increased, merely that some cardinalities
are larger than others.


> (The reson is that "all" is maeningless here.)
Inside WM's WMytheology , lots of things are meaningless that have
perfectly good meanings elsewhere.
>
> What about C1, C2, C3?


That is a finite sequence even in WMytheology.
>
> Regards, WM

--