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.