Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
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 ANTI-DIAGONAL
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