Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:26:49 -0700
In article <1162828228.538226.143300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
There is a mapping of the diagonal on a (each) column.
There is no mapping of the diagonal on any line.
The diagonal cannot have more elements than the width of the matrix is.
For every n in N, there is a line longer than n,
For every n in N, there is a line number larger than n.
There is no last line.
here is no last position in the diagonal.
The number of elements of the diagonal is assumed to be omega.
That is wrong, because only the supremum is omega.
WM assumes that omega must be a member of omega, which is false.
To say that the number of elements in a well- ordered set is omega
prohibits any of those members, taken in order, from corresponding to
omega.
To insist otherwise is to require omega to be a member of itself.
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Congruences, primes
- Next by Date: difference between two solutions
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading