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: The Diagonal Argument
Replies: 28   Last Post: Dec 29, 2012 12:11 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: The Diagonal Argument
Posted: Dec 28, 2012 4:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
"Ross A. Finlayson" <> wrote:

> On Dec 27, 9:35 pm, Virgil <> wrote:
> > In article
> > <>,
> >  Graham Cooper <> wrote:
> >

> > > one must consider the audience Virgil!
> >
> >
> > > seems to be the only mathematics he can grasp!
> >
> > Actually, Cantor's original argument does not even use digits.
> >
> > Cantor considers the set, S, of functions from the set of naturals |N as
> > domain, to the two-letter set of letters {m,w}, and shows that there
> > cannot be any surjective mapping f: |N -> S by  constructing a member g
> > of S not in Image(f)
> >
> > Since  f: |N -> S, each f(n) is a function from |N to {m,w}
> > So that when  g(n) is a member of {m,w}\f(n)(n) for each n, then g is
> > not a member of S.
> > --

> That's not "Cantor's original argument", for what he may have first
> stated it.

If is in a considerably different form, but is precisely the idea of
Cantor's 'diagonal' argument, based on the set of all infinite sequences
of letters taken from {m,w}.

Note that Cantor had a fair number of other theorems re infiniteness
other than the one called his diagonal argument.

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.