
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 12, 2012 3:22 PM


In <k7rehn$rci$1@dontemail.me>, on 11/12/2012 at 06:18 PM, "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> said:
>In Cantor's proof a_{i+1} and b_{i+1} are the two first entries >encountered (in any order) in (x_n) *after* the entries >corresponding to a_i and b_i. This does not seem to be the case >with your proof, where it instead seems that entries are just >picked every time restarting from the beginning of (x_n).
Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
>Could you clarify?
Yes.
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

