On 4/12/2013 3:10 AM, WM wrote: > On 12 Apr., 08:34, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Now let P be (can remove the collection without changing >> the union of the remaining lines). We have there is no >> contradiction in saying A: for all n, the nth line can be removed >> because A does not imply C and only C is a contraction. > > No, we have that not. And you have never given any evidence for your > unsubstantiated claim, than repeating it. > > Cantor uses the contrary. He proves A (every line l_n =/= d) and > claims to have proved C (all lines are =/= d).
The Cantor argument says nothing that compares the constructed diagonal as an object with the given list as an object.