In article <email@example.com> WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > 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.
How I did show that? Did you ever study the mapping I provided? I think not.
> > 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.
Apparently you are deliberately obtuse, using words with two different meanings in the same sentence. Because that "checking" implied the comparing to the diagonal, not just checking its position. Or do you consider checking positions of lines sufficient to decide that the line is not equal to the diagonal?
Try to free yourself from your obsession to use common words with different meanings in a single paragraph, or even sentence. -- dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/