
Re: Peerreviewed 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 antidiagonal 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 antidiagonal > > was Real using Cauchy sequences, on the basis that no crank disputes > > whether the antidiagonal 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 counterexample 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.

