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 acts
of definition.