In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > 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. > > Your proof is flawed. The set of natural numbers not generated by your > program is N, when you start. If the set is empty at any later time, > then there must have been a step where the last natural number had > been generated. This is nonsense. Therefore your proof is false.
You argument is flawed, as you are trying to show an error in a mathematical proof using non-mathematical methods. In particular, you keep referring to "time", which is not part of mathematics.