```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 properlyby WMorons> There is not a bit of logic in> arbitrary choice.You mean there is not a bit of logic inyour choices.
```