Do you plan on responding to my suggestion that you point out the invalid step in Cantor's theorem?
You say that Cantor's theorem is invalid, right? (You are using the term "invalid" in its customary sense, I assume.)
This means that there is some step in the argument which is invalid, right?
Would you like to step through the argument with me and show me which step is invalid?
If so, how about I present the proof that, for any set X, there is no surjection X -> PX, and you show me where that argument goes wrong?
-- Quincy (age 5): Baba, play some [computer games]. Mama: Quincy, if you want [Baba] to live, don't make those suggestions. Quincy: Make those suggestions. Got it.
