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

--