Date: Feb 13, 2013 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s
On 2/12/2013 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb., 18:13, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 2:12 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>>> There is no line of the list that contains all FISs of d (because
>>>> there are not all).
>>> Your claim is that there is a line of the list that contains
>>> every FIS of d (there is no mention of all)
>> But you seem to interpret some completeness into "every".
>> Remember, beyond *every* FIS there are infinitely many FISs.
> But no FISs beyond *every* FIS.
>>> you also claim
>>> the potentially infinite sequence d is not equal to the
>>> potentially infinite sequence given by a line of the list.
>> The lines of the list are finite.
>> Or does that property disturb you?I use this model only because it is
>> simpler to treat.
>>> Note that a potentially infinite sequence x is
>>> equal to a potentially infinite sequence y iff
>>> every FIS of x is a FIS of y and every FIS of
>>> y is a FIS of x. No mention or need of completion.
> That does not hold when comparing an infinite sequences of finite
> sequences of digits with an infinite sequence of digits.
> A FIS of a sequence of sequences is not the same as a FIS of a sequence
> of individuals. at least not for sequences of more than one object.
> For WM's argument to be calid here one would have to have sequences of 2
> or more digits identical to single digits.
As I said. There are no singular terms for WM.