In article <88d97pF74kU1@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/06/2010 11:33 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 23/06/2010 11:03 AM, Virgil wrote: > >> In article > >> <2000e81b-7c5a-41be-b6af-98f96f2fb630@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >> WM<mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > >> > >>> On 22 Jun., 21:34, Virgil<Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> But (A0, A1, A2, ...) is obviously countable. Above you say it's > >>>>>> "certainly > >>>>>> not countable", but it is. > >>>> > >>>>> The set is certainly countable. But it cannot be written as a list > >>>> > >>>> But it HAS been written as a list (A0, A1, A2, ...), > >>> > >>> Does this list contain the anti-diagonal of (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, > >>> L0)? > >> > >> Since (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0) does not appear to be a list, why > >> should there be any antidiagonal for it? > > > > Ach! Let's scrap A0 - it's confusing. > > > > If we let L_n be the nth element in the list L0, and An the > > anti-diagonal of the An-1, An-2,...., A1, L_1, L_2, L_3,... > > > > then > > > > L_1 > > A1 > > L_2 > > A2 > > L_3 > > A3 > > L_4 > > ... > > > > is a list. I'm still thinking about that. > > > > Sylvia. > > Hmm... > > A1 is the antidiagonal of L1 L2 L3... > > A2 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 L3... > > A3 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 A2 L3 L4... > > Each An is thus constructed from a list that is different from the list > into which it is inserted. So the construction does not lead to a list > that should contain its own anti-diagonal, and it doesn't. > > Sylvia.
