```Date: Feb 11, 2013 10:54 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s

On 2/11/2013 3:40 PM, Virgil wrote:> In article> <9f0b86ba-50b9-4692-8858-6b0788c7ed0c@x15g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,>   WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:>>> We show that the potentially infinite diagonal is in the list by>> proving that every o_nn is in the list. And every o that is in the>> list, is in some line of the list. And everything that is in some line>> of the list is in one line of the list.>>>> Anything wrong with this conclusion?>> Every member of a sequence can be in a list of members of sequences> without the sequence being in the list of sequences.>> Consider the list> L1 = 1, L2 = 2, L3 = 3> Which does not contain D = 123> even though every member of D is in one of L1 or L2 or L3>> WM's claim is no more true than claiming that the union of a family of> sets must be one of the family being unioned.>> The union of all FISONs (finite initial segments of naturals) is not a> FISON.>> Given a list of all FISONs, the union of them is not a FISON.> Thus give a list of successively FISON-long strings, a string as long as> their union cannot be one of them.>Indeed.Whatever a "digit" in WMytheology is, I am unable to producethem to WM's satisfaction (it remains undefined).By the same standard, is he not obligated to produce a listof successively FISON-long strings which include a string aslong as their union?  It has something to do with realityand existence.  That is how the matter has been so painstakinglyexplained to me.
```