The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 413
Replies: 13   Last Post: Jan 15, 2014 7:58 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 413
Posted: Dec 31, 2013 4:49 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:
> On Tuesday, 31 December 2013 17:08:54 UTC+1, wrote:
> > > You think it is impossible to list all finite definitions?
> > Yes, and so do you,
> No. I have shown a list of all finite words.

No you have not.

WM has repeatedly denied the existence of any actually infinite lists,
of which a list of all finite words would certainly be one, and now WM
claims they actually do exist and that he has provided one of them.

WM blows hot and cold with the same breath!

> > since for a potentially infinite list, L, of finite
> > definitions of potentially infinite 0/1 sequences there is a finite
> > definition of a potentially infinite 0/1 sequence not an element of L.
> > Any putative list you provide is a putative contradiction

> There is no difference with the list of all natural numbers.

Not every word names a natural number and not every natural number can
be named by one world. While there may be a bijection between the SET of
all natural numbers and the SET of all finite words, only WM would ever
be so arrogant as to claim that every finite word IS a natural number
and that every natural number IS a finite word.
Everybody knows that WM is wrong.

> And in actual infinity of set theory: an infinite list has no finite
> antidiagonal.

WM has no idea what goes on or does not go on with actual infinities.
His mind is much too small.

Besides, no one other than WM himself ever claims finiteness for the
number of digits of an antidiagonal, but its definition requires it to
have a value between 0 and 1, which is eminently finite.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.