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
> WM <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr., 22:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>> Consider the representation as a table
>>>> 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.