On 3 Jan., 04:26, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: > WM wrote: > > On 1 Jan., 19:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The distinguishability argument is a deep intuitive argument about the > >> question of Countability of the reals. It is an argument of mine, it > >> claims that the truth is that the reals are countable. However it > >> doesn't claim that this truth can be put in a formal proof. > > > The distinguishability argument is neither deep nor intuitive. > > It is not even an argument, just question-begging.
It is prerequisite when dealing with numbers. And it is exactly what Cantor applied, He distinguished numbers at finite places. > > > And is > > not an argument of yours since you do not even understand its > > implications. It is simply the basis of the axiom of extensionality. > > How should we distinguish elements if they could not be distinguished? > > > we arrive finally at: > > >> FINAL CONCLUSION: > > >> The number of all reals is COUNTABLE. > > > Of course this would be the result if "countable" was a sensible > > notion. > > You even know what the result would be if non-sensible notions involved > were sensible. Mückenheim, you are either the Greatest Genius Of All Times > or one of the greatest idiots.
It is not necessary to be a genius in order to recognize blocked brains. Every average psychiatrist knows that. And it is not necessary to be an idiot in order to believe that Cantor by distinguishing real nunbers "proved" the existence of indistinguishable numbers. But, of course, it helps.