On Oct 29, 2:26 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article <sior88t2h05c7t3p0lhoa1g99uuq69i...@4ax.com>, > > > JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> 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? > > > J. > > In its original form (about sequences of letters from the set {m,w}) I > do not see that Cantor's argument can possibly be either incoherent or > unclear. >
