Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Cantor's diagonal argument.
Replies: 24   Last Post: Oct 12, 2001 5:16 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Daryl McCullough Posts: 502 Registered: 12/8/04
Re: Cantor's diagonal argument.
Posted: Oct 5, 2001 1:26 PM

g.d.redgrave@elostirion.freeserve.co.uk (Giles) says...

>Why can't you apply the same inductive argument to sets of natural
>numbers.
>
>1. A_1 has a finite number of elements
>2. For each n, if A_n has a finite number of elements, then A_{n+1}
>has a finite number of elements.
>3. Therefore, each set of natural numbers has finite size.
>
>This seems to me to be exactly the same argument.

No. It would be a correct proof by induction if
you replace 3. by "Therefore, for each n, A_n is
finite." That doesn't imply that every set of
naturals is finite, only those sets that happen
to equal A_n for some n.

--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY

Date Subject Author
10/3/01 Giles Redgrave
10/3/01 Jan Kristian Haugland
10/3/01 Robin Chapman
10/3/01 Clive Tooth
10/3/01 Christian Bau
10/3/01 briggs@encompasserve.org
10/3/01 Randy Poe
10/4/01 Giles Redgrave
10/5/01 Giles Redgrave
10/5/01 Jan Kristian Haugland
10/5/01 Dave Seaman
10/5/01 Christian Bau
10/5/01 Daryl McCullough
10/5/01 Steven Taschuk
10/5/01 Virgil
10/5/01 Tralfaz
10/5/01 Virgil
10/5/01 John Savard
10/12/01 Steve Brian
10/12/01 Virgil
10/4/01 Nico Benschop
10/3/01 Steven Taschuk
10/3/01 Andy Averill
10/3/01 Virgil
10/5/01 John Savard