Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument

On 29 Sep, 04:14, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
<mariano.suarezalva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:38 pm, LudovicoVan <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Sep, 19:45, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

LudovicoVan wrote:
Consider the inductive sequence of lists (a formal definition can be
found in [1]):

n=1
---
0
1

Is the same as:

00
10

It is not. And you might even translate that to proper mathematical
definitions, and still that will have nothing to do with the
definitions given in the OP and, a fortiori, won't show any flaw in
the given proof.

What you wrote (before the [], if you want) is not a
proof of anything. It is not even an argument.

Well, too bad you cannot see it: maybe it's because the whole thing is
near to trivial. That's a side of the very nature of most foundational
issues.

Also, in the OP you did not give any definition.

Not true.

-LV
.

Quantcast