Date: Feb 9, 2013 3:39 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<cb78b67a-e0eb-4213-b6e2-6addddd57f3f@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 9 Feb., 16:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 9, 11:59 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > On 9 Feb., 00:49, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > On Feb 8, 11:38 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > > > On 8 Feb., 23:26, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> More

> > > > > WM logic

> >

> > > > > > L is a potentially infinite

> > > > > > list and d is the potentially infinite

> > > > > > anti-diagonal

> >

> > > > > > From

> > > > > > i. For every natural number n, d

> > > > > > is not the nth line of L

> >

> > > > > correct.

> >

> > > > > > ii. i. implies that there is no

> > > > > > natural number m such that

> > > > > > d is the mth line of L

> >

> > > > > No such m can be fixed.

> >

> > > > Your claim is that no such m exists.-

> >

> > > You argue

> >

> > Nope, the arguments are yours

> > and the statements are yours-

>

> Of course. But the wrong interpretation is yours.

It is only wrong within your own WMytheology, but right everywhere else.

What exceeds in length every fis is of not finite (infinite) length.

--