On 4/12/2013 12:46 AM, WM wrote: > 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.
...which have nothing to do with Cantor's argument unless n=k for some n