On Jun 20, 1:18 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > In article > <f92c169d-ee85-40c2-aa82-c8bdf06f7...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@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.
Please CONSTRUCT the anti-diagonal in the space provided below.
Virgil's anti-diagonal construction BEGIN
END
> 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.
