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