Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?

From: Mitch Harris (harrisq_at_tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de)
Date: 11/18/04 

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:04:32 +0100

George Greene wrote:
>
> The usual set-theoretical successor of x is xU{x}, NOT p(x).
> There are GOOD reasons for this.

I forget. Why is that? exponential growth rather than doubly so?
Do proofs just not work or are they just messier?
And then what is so bad about just plain {x} again? 

-- 
Mitch Harris
(remove q to reply)