Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: "georgie" <geo_cant@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:34:47 -0700
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <1158683189.567305.51540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
georgie <geo_cant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Arturo Magidin wrote:
(ii) The strings Dk, where D1 is obtained via the diagonal process
from L1, and D(k+1) is obtained via the diagonal process from the
list that has D(k+1-j) in the j-th position, j=1,...,k, and L1(n) in
the (k+n)th position.
"the list that has D(k+1-j) in the j-th position, j=1,...,k, and L1(n)
in the
(k+n)th position." is an attempt to describe L_Omega.
No, Georgie boy. It is an accurate description of the list considered
in step k+1 of the procedure described. The list described in (ii) is
used ONLY in order to construct the string D(k+1).
Do you use the "No, Georgie boy." proof often? Does it get published?
According to you, (ii) does not describe a list in the limiting case.
You said
yourself that the limiting case, L_Omega, is not a list so (ii) is not
valid.
No, Georgie-boy. You are grasping at straws and choking on air.
So were you wrong before, when you said L_Omega was not a list,
or are you wrong now that you deny it?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Virgil
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- References:
- Another stab at Cantor
- From: msadkins04
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: georgie
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: georgie
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Another stab at Cantor
- Prev by Date: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by Date: Re: Infinity Sum
- Previous by thread: Re: Another stab at Cantor
- Next by thread: Re: Another stab at Cantor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
