In article <email@example.com>, George Greene <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 12:28 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > it fails because with Infinite Sets of Reals > > You can alter the Number Order > > To change the digit back! > > THAT DOESN'T CHANGE anything! > You can permute the list of reals ANY WAY YOU LIKE. > That will give you A DIFFERENT anti-diagonal and thus a DIFFERENT new > number > but NEITHER THE NEW ANTI-DIAGONAL NOR THE OLD ONE will be on EITHER > list! > Obviously permuting the list does NOT change the answer to ANY > question of the > form "is x on this list?". It might change WHERE it is, if it's on > there, > but it does NOT change the answer to "yes it is" or "no it isn't". > > > > Its like putting a coin on a 2UP paddle > > and giving it a one way opposing flip. > > > > Null Operation as you just flip it twice! > > That's just ONE DIGIT, DUMBASS. THE ISSUE is about THE WHOLE > new anti-diagonal. Changing the list does NOT change ANY digits of > the OLD > ORIGINAL anti-diagonal. It gives you a NEW list with a NEW anti- > diagonal. > Which is ALSO NOT ON the list. > The issue in any case IS NOT EVEN WHETHER "the argument fails". > The issue is whether the anti-diagonal IS OR IS NOT ON the list. > And it is OBVIOUSLY NOT ON IT since it differs from EVERY real on the > list.
You are being too rational and sensible to convince any of the kooks. --