In article <41a66545-c0bb-44e3-bb41-1fdaf0c83d71@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 24 Jun., 01:02, "Mike Terry" > <news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > > > a) Does this list contain the anti-diagonal of > > > (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0)? > > > > This is not a list of numbers. L0 is not a number, it is a list. > > > > Therefore (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0) does not have an anti-diagonal. > > You are wrong. > > The symbols above abbreviate the sequence of lists > > An > ... > A0 > L0 > > Each of them has an antidiagonal that either is not in the list (then > the set of all of them is unlistable) or is in a list. Then Cantors > argument is wrong.
If one has only a list of lists, then its union can be listed and therefore has many "antidiagonals".
