Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?

From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: 14 Nov 2004 19:42:15 +0100

curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes:

> How can you show my
> argument is invalid and at the same time, keep Cantor's logic about the
> relationship between the integers and reals as valid?

  If you're a genuine crank, it is of course quite impossible to show
you anything. If you're not, you'll find out about these things for
yourself.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... >> argument is invalid and at the same time, ... > If you're a genuine crank, it is of course quite impossible to show ... everyone has taken issue with my defintion of "reals" or with the ...
    (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: continuum
    ... aspect of the 'countable reals paradox' overlooked so far by the ... And so the author concludes that (ZFC proves that) not only is ... So why is the proof above invalid in ZFC? ... "By induction we not only get that the unit interval can only have 1 ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: You pedantic ignoramuses
    ... >> there are uncomputable reals. ... > computable in some computer system. ... But forming diagonals *is* an invalid op in some contexts, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: You pedantic ignoramuses
    ... >> there are uncomputable reals. ... > computable in some computer system. ... But forming diagonals *is* an invalid op in some contexts, ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading