Date: Feb 7, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 7 Feb., 20:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:06 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 7 Feb., 19:46, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Gosh, you are really running away
> > > from the fact that induction can
> > > show d is not in the list.
> > Induction can show that *your* d does not exist.
> My d? You are the one who defined d to be
> the antidiagonal of the list.
The antidiagonal of a list is not always in the list, but the diagonal
of the list
is with certainty in this very list - since it is nothing else but a
potentially infinite sequence of 1' and not longer than the lines.
> You also
> show by induction that the antidiagonal of
> a list is not in the list.
No, that depends on the list.
The antidiagonal of the list
when changing 0 to 1 is in the list, when changing 0 to 2 it is not.