On 12 Apr., 01:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > Let the list conatin all binary sequences q_k. > > That is assuming something that is false,
No, it would be false only if Cantor was right. But he fails. Nevertheless, since there is no binary sequence defining any irrational number: Let L be the list of all binary sequences that can be interpreted to define rational numbers of the unit interval.
> > > The counter-argument can be written: > > For every n: (d_1, ..., d_n) does not differ from infinitely many > > entries (qk1, ..., qkn) with k > n. > > Does "(qk1, ..., qkn)" mean > "(q_k1, ..., q_kn)" > or "(qk_1, ..., qk_n)" > or something else entirely?
All these notations can be used. Meant is: the first n bits of the k- th sequence.