i still haven't get it

From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:56:36 +0300

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:47:01 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:

> In article <opsevkwuic3uk9lu@cs81133.pp.htv.fi>,
> The original issue was "Is there any list of reals from which no reals
> are misssing?" We have shown that the answer is "No".

I still don't think we have.

If we take "any" list, Cantor's method give us a list of number's that are
missing from that particular list.
The method does not give us real number(s) that are missing from any list.
When applyied it gives a list of real numbers. So it will not give us real
numbers that are missing from "any" list.

If we take one particulary list then too Cantor's method give us a list of
real number's that are missing from that list.

In either case Cantor's method does not give us real numbers that are
missing from any list. See: it allways give us only a real list of real
numbers.

We don't know, if some list does contain all real numbers, and especially
we don't no what numbers are missing before we use Cantor's method. We
don't know what numbers are missing before we investigate that list. If we
don't know what numbers are missing, can we still say that we are sure
that some numbers are missing, allthought we exactly don't know what?

I think we don't. You have to prove it. You have to show what numbers are
missing.

If we just say, that there is no list containing all real numbers, then
why bother to use Cantor's method to any list? And if we don't use
Cantor's method to any list, then Cantor's method can not be valid. We
don't need any method that we don't use.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: i still havent get it
    ... > The method does not give us real numberthat are missing from any list. ... The modified Cantor precedure applied ... Mathematical claims (like the claim that there is no list of all reals) ... axiom anything provable from other axioms. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors "proof"
    ... Keckman wrote: ... Where there are more numbers missing than there are listed. ... As long as each list of reals is countable (an image of ... in one of the usual ways to avoid the dual representation problem ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote: ... >> If you're a genuine crank, it is of course quite impossible to show ... > idea that my mapping from reals to integers is not complete. ... integers is missing some integers whereas Cantor has proved that *every* ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Attempts to Refute Cantors Uncountability Proof?
    ... For the simple reason that Cantor's proof assumes that the starting ... countable list of all the reals. ... insertion method not indicate there are always more rational numbers? ... value is always missing from the list. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Characterization of an Open Set in the Reals
    ... definition is intimately tied to the reals. ... And your missing-point proof shows convex iff connected. ... suppose we take intervals of the rationals. ... claim something was missing. ...
    (sci.math)