In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Cantor may have distinguished numerals at finite places, but numerals are not numbers. "1.2" and "0.5" are different as numerals but the represent the same number.
> > > > 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.
And, considering the obvious flaws in his attempts at proofs, he is NOT the greatest genius. --