In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Albrecht <email@example.com> wrote: > Your answer is not well considered. You showed a program which > generates _all_ naturals in your opinion. I proved, that your program > lacks infinitely many naturals all the time. A logical consequence is,
And I proved that the set of naturals *not* generated by the program is empty, which contradicts your "proof". Since my proof is not flawed, we must conclude that your "proof" is flawed.