Date: Feb 7, 2013 4:48 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<1e11433f-bb44-4fdf-993a-1f485fec6f4f@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@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"?

For each x, (x in S -> f(x))

For all x, (x in S -> f(x))

For every x, (x in S -> f(x))

all mean precisely the same thing.

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

> nevertheless?

Because in you WMytheology strange things keep happening all the time.

--