In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 11 Apr., 10:37, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > Consider a Cantor-list that contains a complete sequence (q_k) of all > > > > > rational numbers q_k. The first n digits of the anti-diagonal d are > > > > > d_1, d_2, d_3, ..., d_n. It can be shown for every n that the Cantor- > > > > > list beyond line n contains infinitely many rational numbers q_k that > > > > > have the same sequence of first n digits as the anti-diagonal d. > > > > > Proof: There are infinitely many rationals q_k with this property. > > > > > > Claiming what you are trying to prove does not constitute a proof of > > > > what you are trying to prove. > > > > > *There are* infinitely many rational numbers the decimal > > > representation of which begins with d _1, d_2, d_3, ..., d_n. At least > > > if infinity is considered a meaningful notion. > > > > Claiming what you are trying to prove, which is exactly what you have > > done above, STILL does not constitute a proof of what you are trying to > > prove. > > I do not claim to prove this self-evident truth.
Then why did you include a line labelled "Proof:"?
Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, such labels are taken to indicate that what follows it is supposed to be a proof of what precedes it. --