Date: Feb 12, 2013 4:19 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 12 Feb., 09:55, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <1e0deeb6-09db-46a2-8806-47123450d...@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 11 Feb., 22:47, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > You do not see a contradiction in concluding

> > > both

>

> > > everything that is in some line

> > > of the list is in one line of the list.

>

> > > and

>

> > > there does not exist a natural number m

> > > such that the potentially infinite sequence

> > > d is equal to the potentially infinite

> > > sequence given by the mth line.

>

> > Why do you distract the attention of the reader?

> > Of course I see a contradiction.

> > This contradiction has its origin in the assumption that a potentially

> > infinite sequence is something that could be complete enough to be in

> > a line or elsewhere.

>

> If the decimal expansion for 1/3 cannot be actually infinite, it can

> only be because there is some FISON which indexes all its digits.

>

>

>

> > Everybody can see it clearly here:

>

> > 1

> > 1, 2

> > 1, 2, 3

> > ...

>

> > This list has everything that is in the diagonal in a line too. But

> > nowhere we have a completed diagonal

>

> As soon as you include the "...", you have completed it.

That is the current matheological interpretation. But we see that this

very interpretation leads to the contradiction that d is in the list

and is not in the list.

Regards, WM