In article <f92c169d-ee85-40c2-aa82-c8bdf06f7b55@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 20 Jun., 17:51, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > > > Cantor was this utterly insane freak who chose not to accept Newberry's > > word for it, and instead *prove* that there was no list of all real > > numbers. Obviously, his proof is nonsense, because, after all, Newberry > > said there was no list. > > His proof is nonsense because it proves that a countable set, namely > the set of all reals of a Cantor-list and all diagonal numbers to be > constructed from it by a given rule an to be added to this list, > cannot be listed, hence, that this indisputably countable set is > uncountable.
That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the so called "diagonal proof".
What that proof (not actually by by Cantor himself) ays is that any listing of reals is necessarily incomplete because given such a listing one can always construct a real not listed in it.
What Cantor himself proved was that for any list of infinite binary sequences there are binary sequences not listed in that list.
Cantor had previously proved by quite a different method, which WM seems unable or unwilling to criticize, that the set of reals was not countable. > > Even completely blinded matheologicians should be able, perhaps after > some contemplation, to recognize that.
What completely blinded matheologicians are able, perhaps after some contemplation,to recognize is that WM is not working in the same world as mathematicians do.
