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.