> In article > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > WM <email@example.com> wrote: > >> On 30 Mai, 00:18, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> > > It is wrong for complete sets. >> > >> > By which WM means finite ones, but no one has claimed otherwise. >> >> Complete means finished = finite. >> > Cantor, in his diagonal proof of the incompleteness of any list of >> > binary sequences, does NOT assume that the given list is complete. >> > >> > He merely proves that any given list is incomplete. >> > >> > The Cantor challenge is: Provide me with a list of infinite binary >> > sequences and I will show you how to find one not in that list. >> >> That is not difficult to satisfy : The complete list of all real >> numbers starts just at that position n+1 where you will cease to seek >> it. > > Perhaps WM will cease to seek it at some finite natural, but > mathematicians are not so easily discouraged, and will persist beyond > the successor of any such finite natural.
WHAT will they do? Persist to seek "the complete list of all real numbers"? Certainly not.