Date: Feb 11, 2013 11:41 PM
Author: Virgil
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

> > <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 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

mathematicians do.

--