Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 1 Nov 2006 04:04:28 -0800
MoeBlee schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
All entries of the list have a finite number of letters. An infinite
sequence is larger than any finite sequence. The diagonal of a list
cannot have more letters than the lines.
According to your logic the list can have infinitely many lines. But
even if that was correct it would not facilitate an infinte diagonal.
The number of diagonal elements is the minimum of columns and lines.
0
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8 9
...............
.................
...................
infinitely downward for an infinite list of finite lists.
The diagonal is 0 2 5 9 14 ... infinitely across.
All entries in the infinite list are finite lists.
better say finite sequences or numbers or entries
The infinite list is
longer than any finite list.
The entries surpass every finite entry. Nevertheless you call all of
them finite.
The diagonal of the list is infinite.
That is your assertion. But obviously the diagonal elements are
simultaneously elements of the entries.
And that be formalized easily in set theory.
That may be, therefore it is no wonder that set theory yields
selfcontradictions.
The diagonal elements are simultaneously elements of the entries.
Therefore the diagonal elements cannot sum up to a number which is
larger than any natural number unless also the elements of list entries
sum up to a number which is larger than any natural.
Or put it so: Every segment of the diagonal is covered by an entry.
There is no segment which is not covered. If all entries are finite,
then the diagonal cannot be infinite (if infinite omega is larger than
any finite n).
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: compactly suported diff. forms in R
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
