```Date: Feb 7, 2013 8:32 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222

On 2/7/2013 2:02 AM, WM wrote:> On 7 Feb., 08:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:>> In article>> <bbdf841d-effe-48c8-b938-0825f9e82...@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,>>>>   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:>>>>> 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.>>>>   Even if there is  last a_n and  a last a_nn, n, the d_m's can still go>> on without end..>>>>>>>>> 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.>>>> While (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) may be terminating,>> d_1, d_2, ..., d_n, ... need *not* ever terminate.>> The diagonal argument includes merely all (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).There is no plurality in the individual numbergenerated in the construction of the argument.There is only an infinite plurality in the numberof possible demonstrations in which that number canbe used as a counter-example.Now that I understand the nature of your defectI will help to correct it.
```