On Jan 4, 8:13 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> writes: > > Dear fom I'm not against Uncountability, I'm not against Cantor's > > argument. I'm saying that Cantor's argument is CORRECT. All what I'm > > saying is that it is COUNTER-INTUITIVE as it violates the > > Distinguishability argument which is an argument that comes from > > intuition excerised in the FINITE world. That's all. > > But you've neither explained the meaning of your second premise nor > given any indication why it is plausible. > I did but you just missed it.
My second premise is that finite distinguishability is countable.
What I meant by that is that we can only have countably many distinguishable finite initial segments of reals. And this has already been proved. There is no plausibility here, this is a matter that is agreed upon.
Zuhair > -- > Jesse F. Hughes > > "How lucky we are to be able to hear how miserable Willie Nelson could > imagine himself to be." -- Ken Tucker on Fresh Air