On Mar 7, 6:06 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
because no matter what AD function you use it has no effect other than to permute the list
In fact, once a random list is bigger than a small factor X the Base every single string appears on the DIAGONAL and ANTI-DIAGONAL which makes AD(DIAGONAL) a null operation.
Given just the following information: you calculate 9 reals are missing!
And by using SEGMENTED REAL NOTATION it is provable that you can never produce a unique sequence of digits.