Date: Mar 2, 2013 6:08 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Mar 2, 11:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 19:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > We both agree that there is a natural number
> > valued function of time, m(t), such that
> > at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing
> > line which contains all existing FIS of d.
> > We each believe that our m(t) is not constant.

>
> > We also agree that there does not exist
> > (in the sense of not able to find) a
> > natural number n such that the
> > nth line of L is coFIS with the
> > diagonal.

>
> > I find your characterization of this
> > situation as "there is a natural
> > number m such that the mth line
> > of L is coFIS with the diagonal"

>
> since there do not exist more than m FIS of the diagonal.
>

> > to be silly.
>
> Because you do not yet fully understand potential infinity: There do
> not exist more than m FIS of the diagonal.


Oh, I understand all right. It is just that I think
calling m (which cannot be a findable
natural number and behaves exactly like m(t))
a natural number is silly.

>
> Question: Do you find your characterization of the situation in
> finished infinity not silly? Don't you see a mathematical
> contradiction of the sentence: There are all FIS of d in the list but
> not in one single line?
>


Not at all. Clearly
there are all FIS of d in one single line
iff there is a last line.
I do not consider the sentence
"There is no last line"
to be a contradiction.