On 2/7/2013 7:37 AM, WM wrote: > On 7 Feb., 14:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 2/7/2013 2:02 AM, WM wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7 Feb., 08:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <bbdf841d-effe-48c8-b938-0825f9e82...@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, >> >>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >>>>> Matheology 222 Back to the roots >> >>>>> Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d: >> >>>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). >>>>> For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. >>>>> For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating. >> >>>> Even if there is last a_n and a last a_nn, n, the d_m's can still go >>>> on without end.. >> >>>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). >>>>> For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. >>>>> For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating. >> >>>> While (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) may be terminating, >>>> d_1, d_2, ..., d_n, ... need *not* ever terminate. >> >>> The diagonal argument includes merely all (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). >> >> There is no plurality in the individual number >> generated in the construction of the argument. >> >> There is only an infinite plurality in the number >> of possible demonstrations in which that number can >> be used as a counter-example. >> >> Now that I understand the nature of your defect >> I will help to correct it.- Zitierten Text ausblenden - > > Try to correct your defect, moron.
Glad you enjoyed the remark.
The diagonal proof is not a proof of the nature of the real number system as defined in his constructions.
The diagonal argument is a schema illustrating how to produce a counter-example to any purported claim of using a particular form of representation to describe a definite infinity of multiplicity one.
The fact is that you simply keep repeating the same thing time and time again while ignoring any challenges that would require *actual* knowledge of mathematics in addition to the nonsense you keep parroting. This if further evidence that you do not understand the diagonal argument to begin with.
