fom
Posts:
1,035
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 1:16 PM
|
|
On 2/6/2013 8:46 AM, WM wrote:
> On 6 Feb., 02:34, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2013 11:02 AM, WM wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Feb., 17:06, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>> This correspondence is as impossible, as I have shown above, as
>>> finding a set of natural numbers with negative sum.
>>
>> No.
>
> If you think no, then explain this:
>>
> Have you ever seen a Cantor-list where more than half of the
> interesting sequences (a_j) of digits a_kj with k < j had infinite
> length? Have you ever seen a Cantor-list with at least one of the
> interesting sequences of digits having infinite length? No? Why the
> heck do you believe that they play the crucial role in Cantor's
> "proof"?
It is called individuation.
I imagine you have a wife.
I imagine you find parts of her interesting.
I imagine you have arguments because of the parts of her
you do not find interesting.
That does not mean those parts are irrelevant.
Perhaps you no longer have a wife.
|
|
