Date: Feb 19, 2013 6:43 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 19 Feb., 02:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <20086a5e-4a68-44dd-99b7-5a6b7c0c3...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 17 Feb., 22:24, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > > In article

> > > There is, however, a natural larger than any previously given natural.

>

> > Nevertheless it is a natural number and therefore finite.

>

> but for every one of them there is successor which is also one of them.

This is true for the list

1

12

123

...

as well as for its unchanged diagonal.

You cannot get a diagonal that is longer than every line of the list.

>

>

> But for lines that are not finite there are no FISs equal to those lines.

For natural numbers that are not finite your statement may be

relevant. But we can ignore it, since the premise is false.

>

>

> Does WM claim to know of a natural that does NOT have a successor

> natural?

No, that is just my argument. There is no last finite line in the

list. Therefore the diagonal cannot surpass every line.

>

> Unless WM, or someone else, can name a d_n that d cannot not exceed,

Irrelevant. Find a part of the diagonal that is not as a line in the

list.

Regards, WM