In article <2f528019-859b-49a0-bc40-829ab071f731@e20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:27 am, SPQR <S...@roman.gov> wrote: > > In article > > <b2945c35-e025-4761-bb6a-ce60192d2...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 20 Aug., 21:01, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > If there is no such thing as |R, why are you referring to it as if there > > > > were? > > > > > Have you ever seen a proof by contradiction? Like that starting with > > > the assumption let sqrt(2) = m/n ? > > > > > > > > Since your conclusion is wrong, there is at least one step in your > > > > > > argument which is wrong. > > > > > > > Or set theory with its claim of finished infinity is inconsistent. > > > > > > Which neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to establish, > > > > despite years of futile attempts. > > > > > You are in error. Your capacity is not fit to comprehend my proofs. > > > > No one sane has the capacity to "comprehend" YOUR proofs. > > You don't have the capacity to tell a list of diagonals > > D1 = 0.1000.. > D2 = 0.2000.. > D3 = 0.3000.. > > from the LIST of reals they were taken from! > > It's like talking to a SPEAQER from an old university lecture on auto > replay. > > Well nobody here has addressed a single post of mine
Since you have not addressed either of Cantor's two proofs of the uncountability of the reals with anything resembling a mathematical counterargument, there is no reason for anyone to address anything you have posted. Those two proofs remain valid!
