Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Brian Chandler (imaginatorium_at_despammed.com)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Proposed definition for comparing the sizes of two sets"
- Previous message: Acid Pooh: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: fishfry: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Nov 2004 23:39:53 -0800
fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-331258.23244127112004@netnews.comcast.net>...
> In article <3c6b9c1e.0411272122.2449a629@posting.google.com>,
> raf@tiki-lounge.com (Ross A. Finlayson) wrote:
>
> > Hi Bob, if that is your real name,
>
> It's not. Bob is a palindrome of his real name.
Objection. "Palindrome" is a unary property: X is or is not a
palindrome - it can't be a palindrome "of" something. I think you
meant to say "anagram".
Brian Chandler
- Next message: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Proposed definition for comparing the sizes of two sets"
- Previous message: Acid Pooh: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: fishfry: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Dave Seaman: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Dave Seaman: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
