On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 22:26:21 -0600, Virgil <virgil@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> How can this be unclear? >> >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.
Well that's where the fun begins, isn't it?
You don't see any of the constructivist criticisms of the whole project applying in any way to this particular argument, either its steps, its assumptions, nor its conclusions?
