Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:45:04 +0000 (UTC)
On 28 Sep 2006 04:06:24 -0700, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Peter Webb schrieb:
You produce ANY list of all Reals, I can show you a missing real. Therefore
I can do it for ALL lists, and hence there is no complete list of Reals.
Obviously you have to tell me the list first, as there is no single Real
which is missing from every list,
No?
But the set of all lists is countable (as is any quantized or
discontinuous set),
Wrong.
so is the set of all list entries. Nevertheless,
there is no real number missing in every list? So every real number is
in at least one of the list? So every real number is one element of a
countable set of entries? And there is nothing real really outside of
this countable set?
Regards, WM
--
Dave Seaman
U.S. Court of Appeals to review three issues
concerning case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
<http://www.mumia2000.org/>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Cantor Confusion
- From: the_wign
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by Date: Re: Calculus
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|