On Aug 16, 7:27 am, "porky_pig...@my-deja.com" <porky_pig...@my- deja.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 11:02 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 14, 10:33 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I summarised my 3 main points on why Transfinite Sets don't exist. > > > > COMPUTATIONAL > > > The diagonal is not BOUND to the countable SET of reals. > > > The identity diagonal is just 1 particular ordering, FREE in LIST. > > > Well, let's start here. I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what this > > means. Perhaps you could try to make it clearer to me. > > Read: he's willing to argue only on his (ill-defined and not properly > understood) terms. In other words, he'll drag you down to his level > and then beat you with experience.
What term are you having trouble with?
--------------------------------------------
So the anti-diag function is
AD = rotatedigits ( DIAG ( LIST ))
but LIST is actually a set with no particular ordering. more importantly it's an infinite set so there are infinite potential orderings.
AD = rotatedigits ( sDIAG ( SET, p ))
where p could be a natural number that determines which permutation of the SET to use
p is FREE in AD ---------------
Does anybody get this far that the DIAGONALS, MISSING REALS, SETS THAT DON'T CONTAIN THEIR INDEX, or MISSING SUBSETS are Dependent_On_The_Ordering of the given LIST_OF_REALS (*or SEQUENCE_OF_SUBSETS in the Powerset version*) ?
