On Dec 16, 3:12 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <dfda217d-a624-45fa-b450-54da0ff37...@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 16 Dez., 21:35, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > However, you haven't justified your claim that there are only > > > countable many countable languages, and in fact it can be shown that > > > this isn't true. > > > Then there is another contradiction. I can prove the contrary. > > > All characters belong to a countable set, because it must be possible > > to encode them as finite strings of bits: > > > 0 > > 1 > > 00 > > 01 > > 10 > > 11 > > 000 > > ... > > > The list is countable. The meanings of words formed by these > > characters and used for discourse must be defined by men. > > Some nonhuman species are alleged to have languages, though much more > primitive that present human languages. > > > There will > > never be more than a finite set of definitions. > > But one can define a set whose members need not all be definable. > > > But even an infinite > > set of languages would not surpass a countable set of words > > Words terminate, strings need not terminate. > -- ++Musatov
