Re: Another stab at Cantor


georgie wrote:
William Hughes wrote:

Either the limiting case is not countable, and we
don't care whether or not it contains all the reals,

From the very first response to the OP:

"...There is no justification for this assertion. What makes you think
that all binary strings are included in the process?

In fact, it is demonstrably false."

So it appears that someone cared.

But not about an uncountable limiting case.

The limiting case was not uncountable and this
was shown in the very first post. (Hint to the hard
of thinking, If you can index a set by the integers
it is countable).

Even if one grants your idiotic belief that
Arturo Magidin's description of the limiting
case was wrong, it remains true that the
limiting case he cared about was countable.


-William Hughes

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another stab at Cantor
    ... don't care whether or not it contains all the reals, ... But not about an uncountable limiting case. ... was shown in the very first post. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Braided Rope with an eye splice
    ... Strength is not the limiting factor, ... but I was simply answering the "neater and ... stronger" assertion. ...
    (uk.rec.sailing)