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