|
|
Re: FAILURE OF THE DISTINGUISHABILITY ARGUMENT. THE TRIUMPH OF
CANTOR: THE REALS ARE UNCOUNTABLE!
Posted:
Jan 11, 2013 1:57 AM
|
|
On 10 Jan., 23:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> What he, and I, find incomprehensible is why
> "the anti-diagonal can at no finite position
> deviate from every entry of the list"
> is presumed to imply
> "That means it can never deviate from every entry."
At no finite position means never because there are no infinite
positions, in mathematics.
>
> What prevents the diagonal from differing from entry n at position n,
> and thus differing from each entry?
Position n is a finite position. But it is clear that for every finite
position there is a double of the diagonal.
>
> That is the way Cantor described it, and nothing WM has said shows why
> Cantor was not correct.
The first halt sentence is correct.
The second shows your lack of insight: Not at a finite plave means
"never". It does not mean "in some infinity" although matheologians
believe in finished infinity.
Regards, WM
|
|
