```Date: Feb 10, 2013 5:33 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s

On 2/10/2013 4:16 PM, Virgil wrote:> In article> <3a8b891b-172f-415f-b4f6-34f988abae5d@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,>   WM <mueckenh@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.>>>> 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.>> But the diagonal is in the list, since it is defined in the list only.>> Nothing of the diagonal can be proven to surpass the lines and rows of>> the list.>> It is not that the diagonal "surpasses" any particular line, it is> merely that an appropriately defined  "diagonal" is different from each> and every particular line, i.e., does not appear as any line among the> lines being listed.Yes.  And the scare quotes are nice.The problem with singular terms means that"diagonal" is, in fact, a plurality of actsof definition.
```