Date: Feb 7, 2013 4:18 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 7 Feb., 10:11, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 10:05 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > On 7 Feb., 10:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > On Feb 7, 7:45 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > > Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

>

> > > > Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d:

>

> > > Then, according to WM, d is not a line of the list.

>

> > Do you agree that the logic applied in set theory does not make a

> > difference between "for every" and "for all"?

> > Can you explain why here, in this decisive case, a difference appears

> > nevertheless?

>

> Since neither standard set theory, nor the concept "all" is used

> by WM in obtaining "d is not a line of the list"

> I don't know what you mean by "a difference appears".

Look at the original post. Standard set theory is applied.

Regards, WM