In article <aa348889-9e3b-4299-b906-e1d53ac96f85@s12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
If WM cannot even produce a list of binaries for Cantor's technique to work on, or a list of reals for the modified diagonal proof to work on, then WM loses by default.
And whenever WM, or anyone else, does produce one of those lists, it will easily be shown to be incomplete.
