Date: Feb 7, 2013 4:50 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<1eda30e3-8f9e-4a55-ae3a-89368e363b90@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> 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.


Unless WM can demonstrate such a 'difference' here,
why should anyone believe it exists here?
--