Re: Cantor's "diagonal argument". My Objection.

Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <ghck07$rjq$1@xxxxxxxx>, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <gh9mat$l8h$2@xxxxxxxx>, John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:

No, I did not. I said "an ordering among the naturals".
Yes, a placement for digits.
You know, just repeating the same lie (or the same idiocy) does not
suddenly make it true. Your crap does not become gold simply because
you insist on trying to polish it.


Look, slow down when you read.

I slow down as much as I need to when I read. I read for
comprehension. Whereas you only read for plagiarism.

"An ordering among the naturals" means 1) there are properties of order, and 2) there are properties of naturals.

No. An ordering among the naturals means a binary relation

Binary relation? A binary relation is the placement/number duality. Just as I argued. I'm not stupid. Are you trying it on?

on the set
of naturals which is reflexive, antisymmetric, and
transitive.

Circular. I picked it up quickly. You said "ordering among the naturals means a binary relation on the set of naturals." You are not close reading. It's a skill. It can be picked up by reading over a number of years, well-structured, intricate prose, the sort that Dickens, Milton etc write.


And, that these properties of order allow the natural's to fall into their correct place.

Nonsense.

Try harder.

In other words, you have described a placement, or ordering, that places the naturals in their correct position.

I did not describe anything, Sillypants. You are again projecting your
inability to understand onto others.

So, let's keep this straight: YOU are the idiot who cannot keep his
lies and his ignorance straight. I'm the guy who knows what he is
saying.

Clear now, Mufrius?


if you say so Horatio.
.

Quantcast