```Date: Jan 29, 2013 5:58 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article <4a622e7d-ac62-4208-b6ee-223d47b7039d@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 29 Jan., 14:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Jan 29, 12:28 pm, WM <mueck...@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> >> > It does, however, imply that d is not> > of the the lines of the infinite list L.> > Here we have again the ambivalence required for set theory. No, your> statement is incorrect if "infinite" is used in the sense of completed> or actual, i.e., in the only sense that would allow for set theoretic> cardinality.Set theoretic cardinality is defined by existence or non-existence of surjections from one set to another. And outside of WMYTHEOLOGY all sets, even non-finite ones, are actual. > > >> > > and, hence, cannot> > > be used to argue that cardinality is increased.> > > (The reson is that "all" is maeningless here.)> >> > > What about C1, C2, C3?> >> > I neither know nor care.-> > You should. In the case of all terminating decimals, for instance, C4> is obviously wrong.Since your C4 is clearly not one of C1,C2 or C3, why should it make any of them relevant to anything except the idiocy of WMYTHEOLOGY ?--
```