On 30 Jun., 16:28, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote:
> > > > It implies knowing line n-1. It implies counting till that number. > > And still no answer to my question, and what you write here is wrong. In > the bijection of the rationals > 0 and the naturals I have so often shown, > to know the rational maped to 66 you need only know the rationals mapped > to lines 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 33. So I need not to know the rational > mapped to 65.
How did you show that? However you agree to a process of counting. > > But my question was: "why is knowing a line the same as checking a line"?
It is by no means the same. But knowing a line is prerequisite to checking it.
> Because you originally asserted: "when checking line n of Cantor's list > you need to check all previous lines".
Here "checking" means checking its position, not checking ts contents.