Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:49:40 -0600
In article <1184674028.768881.143490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 20:45, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184602377.255290.254...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 07:20, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184550638.931818.34...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
IF one has a non-empty ordered set without a largest element, one can
easily prove
But IF one has an empty non-ordered set with a largest element, what
can one prove then?
How can there be a "largest" if there is no ordering by which to compare
sizes?
Can WM explain how to identify a largest without being able to compare
relative sizes?
Can you explain how you check all lines of an infinite list while
behind every checked line there remain infinitely unchecked lines?
At least for WM's example, there is a rule for constructing lines and a
rule for the diagonal, and by comparing rules it becomes obvious to
everyone but WM that the diagonal differs in at least one digit position
from each and every line.
More generally, any rule by which a diagonal is defined is such that it
guarantees it to differ from each 'line' at at least one digit position
and to differ in many positions from any line which has a dual
representation.
.
- References:
- 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
- From: Albrecht
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Don Stockbauer
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Rotwang
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- 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: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- 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
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Next by Date: Solve the inequalities...
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|