On 6 Feb., 19:16, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > 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. > Cantor proves: For every line a_n the inequality a_nn =/= d_n implies a_n =/= d.
This implies: For *every* line a_n: (a_n1, a_n2, ...., a_nn) is *finite*.
In words: The proof unavoidably requires that the lines a_n, with no exception, are finite up to the crucial point a_nn - and the rest is silence. The rest has *nothing* to do with the proof, and if the rest is empty, the proof is not in the least changed. No individuation. Try to *apply* logic.