Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
From: tinyurl.com/uh3t (rem642b_at_Yahoo.Com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: Dave L. Renfro: "Re: What is meant by a meager subset??"
- Previous message: Jim Ward: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- Maybe in reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:26:10 -0800
> From: albstorz@gmx.de (albrecht)
> But he also assume implicit the existence of a _real_ diagonal number
> which could not be in the list. This second assumption is not valid.
> The diagonal number is a rational number, never a real number.
Your claim is completely false. The way the diagonal sequence of digits
was constructed, there's no reason whatsoever that the digits would
repeat exactly over and over endlessly, which is the requirement that
the real number represented be rational.
And even in the rare chance it turned out to in fact be rational, it'd
still be real, and the proof would still be valid, having produced a
real number not on the original list claimed to contain EVERY real
number whatsoever. Whether that purported list of EVERY real number in
fact was missing a rational or an irrational makes no difference, it's
still missing some real number, hence didn't contain EVERY real number
as claimed.
> More about this in de.sci.mathematik :"Hat Cantor doch geirrt?"
I've already seen quite enough of your false statements here in
English, don't need to read more of the same in German too.
- Next message: Dave L. Renfro: "Re: What is meant by a meager subset??"
- Previous message: Jim Ward: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- Maybe in reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|