"Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > LudovicoVan wrote: >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> news:email@example.com... >> > LudovicoVan wrote: >> >>"Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >> > > >> >>> 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.
I have just said it... Unless you mean a full list of all the bollocks ever stated in sci.math: of course, just forget it.
>> >>> 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.
Ever heard of the surreals at all? But you are correct in that I was imprecise: all infinite sets are *extended-countable*, i.e. all infinite sets biject with N*, the extended naturals.
>> 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. > > 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.