```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 thenature of the real number system as definedin his constructions.The diagonal argument is a schema illustratinghow to produce a counter-example to any purportedclaim of using a particular form of representationto describe a definite infinity of multiplicity one.The fact is that you simply keep repeating the samething time and time again while ignoring anychallenges that would require *actual* knowledgeof mathematics in addition to the nonsense youkeep parroting.  This if further evidence that youdo not understand the diagonal argument tobegin with.
```