The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 16, 2012 11:14 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 10:50 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Ross A. Finlayson" <> writes:

> On Nov 16, 8:12 am, Ben Bacarisse <> wrote:
>> "LudovicoVan" <> writes:
>> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <> wrote in message
>> >

>> >> <>
>> > I'll see if I can understand it: for now, thanks for sharing.
>> A first step is to remove the indexes from the irrationals.  In a
>> argument about the supposed countability of the irrationals, to refer to
>> them with indexes (e.g. p_i) looks like begging the question.
>> As it happens, I don't think the indexes do anything but add a layer of
>> confusion.  I think you can rename the various quantities without
>> altering the meaning, i.e. rather than talk about irrationals p_i and
>> p_h just use p and r (q is taken).

> It's constructive, that.

The key set, Q_<i (which would then be called Q_<p) is empty though.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.