On Oct 29, 4:05 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspam...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote: > > 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. > > > AN INFINITE ENUMER_ABLE SET OF BINARY STRINGS > > > WHAT IS MISSING? > > mmmmmm.. wwmmmm.. wwwmwm.. wwwwwm.. ... > > mmmwww.. wmwmmm.. mmmmwm.. mmwwmm.. ... > > wwwmmm.. mwmmwm.. mmwmwm.. wmwmwm.. ... > > wwwwmm.. mmwmww.. mmmmww.. wwwwww.. ... > > ... > > > Prove by extrapolation past 6 terms that some sequence is missing! > > > Herc > > As you haven't told us what "w" and "m" are supposed to be, or the rule > that you are using to form the list, this cannot be done. > > If you think you have a list of all Reals, post it here, and I will > happily prove its not a list of all Reals by finding a Real not on the > list for you.
