In article <KM22v0.yx@cwi.nl>, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
> In article <8b2855cd-18d0-44b1-be59-8dd3d8dabbb7@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> > WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > On 22 Jun., 15:36, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > ... > > > > > > > > > > > Because you do not check the lines in order. > > > > > > > > > > > It is always your basic assumption that you > > > > > > > > > > > first check the first line and after that > > > > > > > > > > > the next line. That is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is necessary because you cannot find the n-th > > > > > > > > > > line unless you know the line number n - 1 or some > > > > > > > > > > equivalent mark. > ... > > > > > Why does it imply checking the previous lines? Why do you not > > > > > answer > > > > > that question? > > > > > > > > You cannot check line n without knowing line n-1. > > > > > > But why does that imply *checking* line n-1? Why do you not answer that > > > question? > > > > 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. > > But my question was: "why is knowing a line the same as checking a line"? > Because you originally asserted: "when checking line n of Cantor's list > you need to check all previous lines". What is that? Nonsense or not?
Whether or not it is nonsense, it is irrelevant, since the Cantor argument applies to all lines simultaneoulsy with a single rule.
