On Oct 29, 12:20 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > On Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:04:41 PM UTC-5, JRStern wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Arturo Magidin > > > <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > > > >Huh? > > > >Sorry, but that statement makes absolute no sense > > > >whatsoever to me. What exactly was the point you > > > >were attempting to make? > > > That I am not arguing with the conclusion that Cantor's Theorem is > > > true, I am questioning whether the diagonal argument is coherent. > > > How can this be unclear? > > Because I did not simply state the conclusion. I gave you the "diagonal argument". If you are questioning whether it is "coherent", then you should point to whatever point you find incoherent, rather than simply quote and then give a sentence fragment. > > The government doesn't like it when I read minds without a warrant, so I try not to do it, you see. > > I have you a complete proof of Cantor's Theorem; the diagonal argument is embedded in that theorem. What is it that you find incoherent? > > If there is nothing you find incoherent, then why is it that you continue to "question" its coherence? > > If you could not even tell that you were presented with the argument in the first place, then perhaps your problems arise much sooner than at Cantor's diagonal argument? > > If it is a *particular* presentation of the argument that concerns you, then it is incumbent upon you to specify which presentation it is you find yourself having doubts about, and stop nattering about "peer-review", books, and the like. > > -- > Arturo Magidin
Are you saying you just proved:
ALL(f):N->R E(r):R ALL(n):N f(n)=/=r
in 1ST ORDER LOGIC?
i.e. FOL = Quantifiers Over Arguments Not Functions.