
Re: R > oo
Posted:
Mar 7, 2013 4:07 PM


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 ANTIDIAGONAL which makes AD(DIAGONAL) a null operation.
Given just the following information: you calculate 9 reals are missing!
0.0... ...
ABSURD!
And by using SEGMENTED REAL NOTATION it is provable that you can never produce a unique sequence of digits.
0. <42> <42433> <42324> <3432233> ... 0. <3353> <003838> <2338> <0> <23> ... 0. <23243> <5343> <5434> <9383838> ..
By breaking Infinite Streams into segments the AD proof never even produces a unique finite sequence!
There are a DOZEN GAPING HOLES with Cantors method all of which are patched up with dodgy logic such as Wills here!
"we only need one extra real so oo+1>oo"
Herc

