Date: Feb 13, 2013 1:02 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s
On 2/12/2013 3:47 PM, Virgil wrote:

> In article

> <13ead2a9-0acc-452f-99aa-c2cd81d02ae7@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,

> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.

>> 1

>> 12

>> 123

>> ...

>> 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.