Re: CANTOR's theorem

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


Randy Poe wrote:

mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

*** T. Winter wrote:


I asked you to tell me what particular step in my proof is wrong.  You
still evade the question.  Pray tell me.  What particular step in my
proof is wrong?

It is no particular step, but 

Stop. There is no "but". If every step in a proof is
right, then the proof is right.


as I said already the triple {m, M, g}
cannot exist.


But you just said there are no incorrect steps in the
proof. Therefore this must not be required by any of
the steps.


The proof is based upon a requirement 

The proof has a requirement which is not a requirement
for any step?



Insist: If and only if there are three unicorns present then 2 < 2.

Justify this implication. How does the conclusion follow from the premise. If you want to say that both (there are three unicorns) and (2 < 2) are false that is o.k. because that is the case.

If you want to use modus tollens then you can show 2 = 2 imples there are not three unicorns. Both the premise and the conlcusion are true.

Bob Kolker

.

Quantcast