Re: CANTOR's theorem



Virgil wrote:
> In article <1116957036.030359.110960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Say, there is no set {M, m, f} where f is a mapping, M is the set of
> > all nongenerators under f, and m is a generator which is not a
> > generator.
>
> Whatever sort of beastie is a generator which is not a generator?

That one which is required to prove Cantor's theorem.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast