LudovicoVan
Posts:
2,971
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 16, 2012 6:22 AM
|
|
"Zuhair" <zaljohar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84d0fa32-32bf-4c3f-b126-110b6b2c7b34@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 11:40 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6a63fbfd-f7e7-458f-af65-fae2c805c951@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...>
>> On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >> In
>> >> fact, that there is a bijection between N* and N is a bogus argument
>> >> too,
>> >> as
>> >> the matter is rather about different order types.
>>
>> > Now I think I'm beginning to somewhat perhaps understand your
>> > argument.
>>
>> That's cool, maybe in another while you'll actually get what the argument
>> was.
>
> You don't have any argument, you just have an unbacked assertion that
> actually springs from your ignorance the matter.
You started by asking me and were given two links with which to play: you
first have failed to say anything useful, now you are just a inconsistent
liar.
-LV
|
|
