Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: KRamsay: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:59:07 +0000 (UTC)
On 15 Nov 2004 03:47:37 GMT, Curt Welch wrote:
> So now I need to further study how natual numbers and real numbers are
> defined and to futher understand why people choose to define them like they
> do.
<http://db.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node5.html>
(Click on "What are numbers?")
-- Dave Seaman Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
- Next message: KRamsay: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: .99999... still=/= 1"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]