
Re: § 432 The complete list is not a square
Posted:
Feb 14, 2014 3:13 AM


Am Freitag, 14. Februar 2014 00:03:28 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.de> writes: > > > > > Cantor's diagonalization argument. > > > > What about the other proofs?
They are as wrong as this one, but here we are debating this one. > > > > <snip> > > > {{Usually matheologians confuse infinities. A potentially infinits > > > list is always a square up to every n. But the presence of the > > > antidiagonal cannot be excluded. > > > > Yes, it can. > > > > Even in WMaths, every potentially infinite row, every potentially > > infinite column, every potentially infinite diagonal and antidiagonal, > > has a value.
If it has a value, then the potentially infinite sequence can be determined up to every index n. Not the other way round. Therefore no infinite digit sequence can define a value. But it is hard to understand, because quantifier confusion and reversion of implication is inherent in matheology and gas to be assimilated by their students. Here: A value yields an infinite digit sequence, but not the other way round.
> The sole proponent of WMaths, Prof. Mueckenheim, explains > in his textbook how an infinite sequence of decimal digits corresponds > to a value. If the rows do indeed correspond to real numbers, then so > do all the other potentially infinite sequences:
If there was a complete correspondence, then you were right.Alas there is no complete correspondence. Proof: Try to recognize a value by the infinite digit sequence without having a finite construction rule. Fail.
Regards, WM

