Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:20:35 +0200
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:32:56 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Let's consider the following infinite list:
1
11
111
.
.
.
The diagonal cannot be longer than every line, because it consists
of line elements. [WM]
Mückenheim's World is a fascinating place (if you are insane).
Q: How long is the list, how many lines does it have?
A: It's infinitely long, it has infinitely many lines.
Q: Right. How many diagonal elements are there (then)?
A: Well, in this case there are infinitely many diagonal elements,
since in every line of the list there is a diagonal element.
Q: Right. Means?
A: The diagonal is infinitely long.
Q: Right. And how long are the lines in the list - how many digits
do they have?
A: Well, they _all_ are finite, hence they _all_ have (only)
finitely many digits.
Q: Means?
A: The diagonal is longer than each and any line in the list.
WM: But the diagonal cannot be longer than every line, because it
consists of line elements.
Q: Well.
A: Well.
F.
.
- References:
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Klaus Cammin
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil
- Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Prev by Date: Re: Dedekind Cuts, Fundamental Sequences: why?
- Next by Date: Re: Well foundedness.
- Previous by thread: Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Next by thread: Re: *** T. Winter says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Index(es):