Date: Feb 10, 2013 4:53 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On Feb 10, 9:55 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 10 Feb., 18:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > On Feb 10, 10:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > On 9 Feb., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > > the arguments are yours

> > > > > > and the statements are yours-

>

> > > > > Of course. But the wrong interpretation is yours.

>

> > > > How does one interpret

> > > > we have shown m does not exist

> > > > (your statement)

>

> > > > to mean that

>

> > > > m might still exist

>

> > > > ?

>

> > > TND is invalid in the infinite.

>

> > > Regards, WM

>

> > In Wolkenmeukenheim, we can have

> > for a potentially infinite set

>

> > we know that x does not exist

> > we don't know that x does not exist

>

> > true at the same time.

> >

> > Strange place Wolkenmuekenheim

>

> Is it so hard to conclude from facts without believing in matheology?

>

> The diagonal of the list

> 1

> 11

> 111

> ...

>

> is provably not in a particular line.

and, according to WM, it is provable that it

is not in any line.

However, the diagonal is a line of the list.

Strange place Wolkenmuekenheim