[HM] Re: May I blame it on Zeus?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Samuel S. Kutler: "Re: [HM] Eudoxus"
• Previous message: Stacy Langton: "[HM] Landau's Grundlagen and consistency (was: First Incommensurables, etc.)"

You wrote:

>The "number of back-and-forth subtractions" is not denumberable; you can do
>the diagonalisation argument on them, just as you can on decimal fractions.

Of course. But why wasn't I thinking clearly?

My answer: Because Zeus stole my wits.

I'll reformulate my questions.

Best wishes for a fine '99,

Sam Kutler

• Next message: Samuel S. Kutler: "Re: [HM] Eudoxus"
• Previous message: Stacy Langton: "[HM] Landau's Grundlagen and consistency (was: First Incommensurables, etc.)"