In article <KKn5F7.DqI@cwi.nl>, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
> In article > <firstname.lastname@example.org> WM > <email@example.com> writes:
> > You drop the completeness condition in certain cases but you assume it > > in case of Cantor's proof. That is cheating. > > You again misunderstand the proof completely. There is an assumption that > a complete list is provided and that is proven false.
As I understand the Cantor diagonal proof, the only assumption is that whenever one is provided with a list then that list has to omit at least one sequence. I do not think it was, in its original form, an indirect proof as your statement seems to indicate.