Date: Apr 23, 2013 4:06 PM
Author: gus gassmann
Subject: Re: Matheology § 255
On 22/04/2013 4:18 PM, Virgil wrote:

> In article

> <a0dc77ed-6546-41c9-8d89-8315c71b37a8@c9g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,

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

>

>> On 21 Apr., 22:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>>

>>>> Consider the representation as a table

>>>

>>>> 1

>>>> 2, 1

>>>> 3, 2, 1

>>>> ...

>>>> n, ..., 2, 1

>>>> ...

>>>

>>>> All initial segments of |N (including |N itself) are in the first

>>>> column, but not in the lines of the table?

>>

>> Can you name an n that is in a column but not in a horizontal line?

>

> For any given horizontal line, I can.

>

>> If not, why do you believe that the comlums contain more than every

>> horzontal line?

>

> Why do you misrepresent what I said so obviously?

>

> Given any column and any line,

> that column contains numbers not in that line.

>

> But the union of the set of all columns and the union of the set of all

> lines are the same.

>

>

>>

>> And you have not shown how it is possible to have more naturals in a

>> column than in every horizontal line. Nevertheless you claim to have

>> shown that erroneously.

>

> No! You claim erroneously that I have claimed it.

> But it is your quantifier dyslexia at work again.

>

> What I actually claimed is that there are more naturals in ANY ONE

> column than in ANY ONE line, but did NOT claim more naturals in all

> columns collectively than in all lines collectively.

>

> It is a distinction that is important in mathematics, even if habitually

> ignored in WMytheology.

"Habitually ignored" is obviously the wrong phrase here, as it is pretty

clear that he is wired in such a way that he cannot recognize any other

way. "Congenitally misapprehended" would be my suggestion.