Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: |R| > oo
Replies: 26   Last Post: Mar 8, 2013 8:55 PM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
William Hughes

Posts: 1,555
Registered: 12/7/10
Re: |R| > oo
Posted: Mar 7, 2013 3:06 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 3, 12:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since all above arguments must hold, the latter more absurd ones are
> enough to throw doubt on Cantors Method


Well, we finally find out why GC is posting all these lists.
However, the argument does not make sense.
It is true that at one point the Cantor proof requires
the choice of an antidiagonal function. There are many
such functions that can be chosen, each leading to a different
number which is not on the list. For some reason this
is a problem in GC 's
mind. But why should an arbitrary choice
invalidate the proof. We only need that there is at least
one antidiagonal function, so the fact that there is more
than one is of no consequence.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.