|
|
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted:
Oct 30, 2012 12:15 AM
|
|
LudovicoVan wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:k6nfnq$dre$1@news.albasani.net...
> > LudovicoVan wrote:
> >>"Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:k6l6as$h0q$1@news.albasani.net...
> > >
> >>> 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.
> > >
> > > Parrot, at least read bloody Cantor's argument before
> > > pontificating your dogma.
> >
> > I have. And its not dogma.
>
> But you have just asked what "w" and "m" are supposed to mean,
> remember? That's why I call you (and co., don't take it personally as
> it isn't) parrots etc.: because you are just right, whatever kind of
> bollocks you might say, in the end you are still right. By dogma,
> and the guns.
>
You actually have to identify what I said which you think is "bollocks".
Somehow you forgot to say what it is.
> >>> 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.
> > >
> > > But you can do no such thing: the anti-diagonal is just not a real
> > > number.
> >
> > Of course it is a Real number. It is the limit of a Cauchy sequence.
> > You do know that convergent Cauchy sequences define unique Reals,
> > right?
> >
> > (I just bagged somebody for providing a proof of the anti-diagonal
> > was Real using Cauchy sequences, on the basis that no crank disputes
> > whether the anti-diagonal is Real. And then you prove me wrong by
> > raising exactly this isuue).
>
> Indeed, to be precise, you and co. excel in not even being wrong.
>
> > So, where is your list of all the Reals?
>
> The real numbers are a subset of the surreals. But I had said that
> already. Of course they are countable:
Terrific. Provide a surjection from N to R.
> there just is no such thing as
> a number that is not a number: a number is all we can do with it
> seriously (you won't get this, but never mind).
>
You are supposed to either say what you think I said which is bollocks,
or provide a counter-example to Cantor.
As it is, you are just mumbling.
> Well, maybe it's not dogma, it's just that you cannot read... But
> no, I am not optimistic about anybody's intellectual honesty around
> here: except maybe for Prof. Magidin, who at least shows some good
> math.
>
> -LV
The cranks should be pretty obvious. Clearly Madigin is not a crank,
but there are many others who are also not cranks. Anybody who claims
that Cantor's proof is false without identifying an error in the proof
is a crank.
|
|
