```Date: Feb 7, 2013 4:20 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article <8d610f94-e350-49b9-82c9-e2efc2a3b89e@fn10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> 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> > 1> 11> 111> ...> > 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. If it is not longer than all lines, then there must be a first such line that it is not longer than. So which is the first line that the diagonal is as short as?No first line implies no line at all.> >  You also> > show by induction that the antidiagonal of> > a list is not in the list.Actually, one should not speak of THE antidiagonal as there are at least as many antidiagonals as lines in the original list.> > No, that depends on the list.> > The antidiagonal of the listWhich one? There are lots of them> > 0.0> 0.1> 0.11> 0.111> ...and none of them are in the list itself.--
```