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.