Re: Galileo's Paradox

On 12/6/2006 9:10 PM, Virgil wrote:
In article <4576F816.5060809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/6/2006 12:03 AM, Virgil wrote:

DA2 does not define anything. But if they were to b e defined by a
theorem, they would already be defined by what I will call DA1.

DA1 dealt with rationals.

By DA1 I was referring to Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of
the reals, and it deals with far more than the rationals.

??? What paper? Do you mean Cauchy's zig-zag diagonalization?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... DA1 dealt with rationals. ... and it deals with far more than the rationals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... DA1 dealt with rationals. ... and it deals with far more than the rationals. ... Do you mean Cauchy's zig-zag diagonalization? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... DA1 dealt with rationals. ... and it deals with far more than the rationals. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading