Re: CANTOR's theorem

In article <1117026736.104413.292380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.

Nowhere in any of Cantor's proofs (or in anyone else's proofs of
Cantor's theorem) is any such a thing required.
.