Date: Feb 10, 2013 5:13 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s

On 2/10/2013 2:55 PM, WM 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.

>
> 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.


Please prove using the format

statement:reason

in demonstration from a formal
definition of the diagonal.