Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- From: Mariano Suárez-Alvarez <mariano.suarezalvarez@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 29, 12:20 am, LudovicoVan <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
No true Scotsman would fail to see the proof in your
post, I guess.
-- m
.
- References:
- Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- From: Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
- Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- From: LudovicoVan
- Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- Prev by Date: Re: Is this a Tautology?
- Next by Date: Re: Approaching the infinite binary tree
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|