In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jun., 12:39, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > > That's *all* that matters, for Cantor's theorem. The claim > > is that for every list of reals, there is another real > > that does not appear on the list. > > The claim is only proved for every finite subset of the list.
On the contrary, a rule is provided which SIMULTANEOUSLY applies to every member of the list.
> Then it > is extrapolated to an infinite list without more reason than to > extrapolate other laws from the finite to the infinite.
When a rule can so easily seen (and proved, if one is too blind to see it without such proof) to apply to every member of a set, only fools like WM will claim that it does not apply to every member of that set.