"Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> writes:
> On Nov 16, 8:12 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes: >> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >> >> >> <http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/finlayson_injectrationals.pdf> >> >> > 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.