"Zuhair" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > On Nov 16, 11:40 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: >> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org...> >> 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.