Date: Feb 7, 2013 8:22 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222

On 2/7/2013 1:54 AM, WM wrote:
> On 7 Feb., 08:15, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2013 12:45 AM, WM wrote:
>
>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
>>> For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating.

>>
>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
>>> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating.

>
>> that the irrational number, in virtue of
>> the property given to it by the definitions
>> has just as definite a reality in our minds
>> as the rational numbers or even the integers,
>> and that one does not even need to gain it
>> through a limiting process, but by possession
>> of it one becomes convinced of the practicability
>> and evidence of limiting processes in
>> general."
>>
>> Notice the word DEFINITION in Cantor's
>> statement.

>
> Definition or not - all cases have to be treated similarly:


Sadly, no one is yet properly treating your case.

> "for all"
> either expresses a limit or not.


It does. It is simply not characterized properly
by WMorons

> There is not a bit of logic in
> arbitrary choice.


You mean there is not a bit of logic in
your choices.