Uirgil
Posts:
184
Registered:
4/18/12


Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 13, 2012 5:01 PM


In article <k7uf0m$v1r$1@dontemail.me>, "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Zuhair" <zaljohar@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:3929e6b62932401dba0a0a440bb18277@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 13, 11:16 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote: > <snip> > > >> Your alleged argument against the Cantor proof does not work against > >> either Cantor's proof, nor Zuhair's proof, nor my proof for that matter, > >> since your N* is irrelevant for all of them. > > > > I showed in the Corollary that even if he use N* as the domain of > > (x_n), still we can prove there is a missing real from the range of > > (x_n). So Cantor's argument or my rephrasing of it both can easily be > > shown to be applicable to N* (any set having a bijection with N) as > > well as N. > > You are simply missing the point there: we don't need N* to disprove Cantor, > we need N* to go beyond it and the standard notion of countability.
I have yet to see you produces a valid disproof of Cantor either with N or with N*.

