Date: Feb 16, 2013 12:56 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222

On 2/7/2013 7:37 AM, WM wrote:
> On 7 Feb., 14:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2013 2:02 AM, WM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On 7 Feb., 08:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <bbdf841d-effe-48c8-b938-0825f9e82...@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>>
>>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> Matheology 222 Back to the roots
>>
>>>>> Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d:
>>
>>>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
>>>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
>>>>> For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating.

>>
>>>> Even if there is last a_n and a last a_nn, n, the d_m's can still go
>>>> on without end..

>>
>>>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
>>>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
>>>>> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating.

>>
>>>> While (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) may be terminating,
>>>> d_1, d_2, ..., d_n, ... need *not* ever terminate.

>>
>>> The diagonal argument includes merely all (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
>>
>> There is no plurality in the individual number
>> generated in the construction of the argument.
>>
>> There is only an infinite plurality in the number
>> of possible demonstrations in which that number can
>> be used as a counter-example.
>>
>> Now that I understand the nature of your defect
>> I will help to correct it.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> Try to correct your defect, moron.


Glad you enjoyed the remark.

The diagonal proof is not a proof of the
nature of the real number system as defined
in his constructions.

The diagonal argument is a schema illustrating
how to produce a counter-example to any purported
claim of using a particular form of representation
to describe a definite infinity of multiplicity one.

The fact is that you simply keep repeating the same
thing time and time again while ignoring any
challenges that would require *actual* knowledge
of mathematics in addition to the nonsense you
keep parroting. This if further evidence that you
do not understand the diagonal argument to
begin with.