Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?

From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom#virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:12:27 -0700

In article <20041114133319.308$pd@newsreader.com>,
 curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:

> Torkel Franzen <torkel@sm.luth.se> wrote:
> > curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes:
> >
> > > Why is it ok to write 0.111... but not ...11111 ?
> >
> > You can indeed write "...11111", and also "fnoggle fnoggle" and
> > "froufy forbandle ignotoot!".
>
> Ok, that's valid. We do not have a common foundation to argue from.
>
> But lets just ignore these side issues and look at the
> strongest part of my argument where I use Cantor's logic to prove that a
> table of integers does not contain all the integers. 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?

The "contradiction" is that you cannot prove that *every* table of
integers is missing some integers whereas Cantor has proved that *every*
table of reals is missing some reals (in fact missing more than are
actually tabulated).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... > curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes: ... We do not have a common foundation to argue from. ... relationship between the integers and reals as valid? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... It only requires that we have a common foundation about ... and the logic used in Cantor's diagonal proof. ... > definition of reals out of the argument. ... integers is missing some integers whereas Cantor has proved that *every* ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Bela Lubkin, free agent
    ... Argue the facts, or forget it. ... there is still a sizeable force working on new product ... but you're missing the point: there is a lot of turmoil at SCOX ... And I'm not wishing ill on Bela or anybody stuck in the ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • 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 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)