Date: Jan 31, 2013 4:55 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article 
<cface2f2-6612-4fb4-b0ba-8e113a1f2e55@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 30 Jan., 22:38, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 10:24 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On 30 Jan., 22:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 30, 6:06 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 30 Jan., 12:32, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jan 30, 12:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On 30 Jan., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Summary.  We have agreed that
> >
> > > > > > > > For a potentially infinite list L, the
> > > > > > > > antidiagonal of L is not a line of L.

> >
> > > > > > Do you agree with the statement
> >
> > > > > > For a potentially infinite list, L,
> > > > > > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > > > > > the antidiagonal of L is not a line
> > > > > > of L

> >
> > > > > Yes, of course. We have a collection of which we can keep a general
> > > > > overview. And in finite sets (potential infinity is nothing but finity
> > > > > without an upper threshold) "for every" means the same as "for all".
> > > > > There is no place to hide.

> >
> > > > So now we have
> >
> > > > For a potentially infinite list, L,
> > > > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > > > the antidiagonal of L is not a line
> > > > of L

> >
> > > > Can a potentially infinite list, L,
> > > > of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences
> > > > have the property that every
> > > > potentially infinite 0/1 sequence
> > > > is a line of L?

> >
> > > Potential infinity is the opposite of completeness like "infinite" is
> > > the opposite of "finished". So *every* line number n would not imply
> > > *all* possible line numbers of the set |N defined by AxInf.

> >
> > This does not answer the question.  Please answer the question.-

>
> The question is not properly defined.




It is defined quite well enough that anyone not self condemned to
WMytheology should be able to answer it.
--