Date: Feb 11, 2013 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article <uqadne7aLr58IYTMnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 3:40 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> > WM <email@example.com> 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.
> 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.
That's how I view it too, but WM seems to have some sort of mental
astigmatism which prevents from seeing anything mathematical the way