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 number
generated in the construction of the argument.

There is only an infinite plurality in the number
of possible demonstrations in which that number can
be used as a counter-example.

Now that I understand the nature of your defect
I will help to correct it.