Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:51:34 -0500

In <fb701d3c.0411302224.1dc1896b@posting.google.com>, on 11/30/2004
   at 10:24 PM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de (W. Mueckenheim) said:

>I have definined a Cantor-list, which always contains the diagonal
>number D_n constructed up to line n

None of those is the number that Cantor defines.

>We see that either of the two statements:
>A) Cantors changed diagonal number differs from every real in a line
>not A) Cantors diagonal number does not differ from every real in a
>line can be taken for granted.

What does that have to do with Cantor's proofs? The issue is not what
appears in a line but rather what appears in a list.

>There is no logical priority in favour of A or not A, as long as all
>lines are enumerated by natural, hence finite numbers.

Which is, of course, impossible, as Cantor proved. 

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... >>A) Cantors changed diagonal number differs from every real in a line ... >>There is no logical priority in favour of A or not A, ... > Which is, of course, impossible, as Cantor proved. ... Cantor was talking about positive finite (today we say: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... Cantor defines a specific number in terms of the ... not a sequence of numbers. ... Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. ... right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. ...
    (sci.math)