In article <be8c6a2f-2351-4a98-ab1d-2d782d3663b2@b10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 20 Okt., 11:43, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > True, in a strict sense, an infinite sequence of linearly_increasing > > objects is a contradiction as the objects would EXPLODE! > > If we use the unary system, then it is clear to everyone (except fully > blinded matheologicians) that not less than n symbols are required to > distinguish n numbers. > > > But since we can only refer to some finite distance down the list > > anyway, it's safe to substitute the term infinity for non-terminating. > > Correct. Non-terminating or without an upper threshold or as far as > you want. > > > So what is the scope of such a contradiction? Can it be used to > > refute higher infinities? Maybe by checking transfinite calculations > > also work in a non-terminating referential to aleph_0! > > No. In order to apply Cantor's proof to the list > > 0.0 > 0.1 > 0.11 > 0.111 > ... > > we must have 1/9 as anti-diagonal number.
Nonsense. The number 0.2 is already an anti-diagonal to your list.
