Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:11:56 -0700
On 16 Jul., 20:50, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184606528.118870.152...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 18:16, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:14 am, WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Consider the list
0.0
0.1
0.11
0.111
...
and switch 0 to 1 on the diagonal. Then you have at the diagonal the
number 0.111..., but only if this number (with one digit less) is also
in the list.
And that does not refute that the set of real number is uncountable.
Let's first clear the following question: Do you agree that the
diagonal in this special case is in the list?
Of course?
Does WM claim that a list in which every member has a last non-zero
character also has a member with no last non-zero character, which is
what the "diagonal" must be.
Have you ever heard that a diagonal must consist of elements of the
list?
Would you expect that the diagonal of the following matrix has more
1's than each line has 1's?
1000...
11000...
111000...
....
If so, WM will next be declaring that black is white and white is black.
I'i leave that to set theorists.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- References:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by Date: Re: about the failure of gear box
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|