```Date: Feb 8, 2013 4:41 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article <8117277e-58e5-45b1-aead-40be634d1951@x15g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 8 Feb., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > More WM logic> >> > From> >> >     i.  For every natural number n, d> >         is not in the nth line of L> > You should distinguish between your d and my d and between your list> and my list. But you are clever enough to understand that such a> decision made with mathematical precision immediately would kill set> theory.Such clarity might well destroy WMytheology, but set theory would only be improved. > >> >     ii. i. implies that there is no> >         natural number m such that> >         d is the mth line of L> > Your d(actual) is nowhere. WM may be able to speak for his own "d" , but not for anyone else's.Wm limits himself to functions from a FISON to a digit set, but cannot limit others as he limits himself. Others are quite fee to map from |N to that same digit set. In which case, WM's claims become irrelevant. >Of course it is then in no list.> Nevertheless it could be claimed to be in list(actual) because there> is no list actual. Its assumption, like every false assumption, allows> every conclusion.> My d(potential) is not in any line of the list because it is never> completed but every line is completed. Nevertheless my d(potential) is> in the list because the list is not completed.> > My argument is this - and it is obvious: There is no part of> d(potential) that is surpassing every line ogf the list.Which lines of your list does d not surpass? NOt the first one.Not the second one.And for each n in |N , not that one.Unless you can name one, you are making false claims,> > If you want to criticise this argument, you are invited to do so. But> most probably you will prefer to clown around. I will no longer answer> to any clownery but only to arguments with respect to these targets:> > A) There is no part of d(potential) that is surpassing every line of> the list.No one says that anything less than the whole surpassed every line of the list, but everyone but WM says that the whole of it does,It does, however, as a whole clearly surpass each line of WM's list.and it is only in WMytheology  that all the parts together do not make up the whole.> > B) Try to apply logic without any semantic interpretationWhy should we try to do what you so carefully avoid doing?> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating.But for all n, the open-ended list (d1, d2, d3, ...), having a term for each n in |N, and which is not any more dependent any particular n's than any others, is non-terminating.> > Regards, WM--
```