Date: Feb 11, 2013 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s
On 2/11/2013 3:40 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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.
Whatever a "digit" in WMytheology is, I am unable to produce
them to WM's satisfaction (it remains undefined).
By the same standard, is he not obligated to produce a list
of successively FISON-long strings which include a string as
long as their union? It has something to do with reality
and existence. That is how the matter has been so painstakingly
explained to me.