If you believe what you wrote below you're a remarkably slow learner. On the other hand, if you're aware that the most important assertion below is simply false you're a liar.
>Matheology § 246 > >Cantor's list contains real numbers r as binary or decimal fractions. >Real numbers, however, are /limits/ of binary or decimal fractions.
No, it _is_ a list of limits of decimal fractions.
>For every terminating fraction of r, Cantor obtains a difference >between r and the due terminating fraction of the anti-diagonal d: >r_nn =/= d_n. He concludes that this remains true for the limits of >the list numbers r and d by using the argument: different sequences >have different limits.
No, it does not use that "argument". Of course one can find incorrect versions of the proof on the internet that do assume this, but a correct version of the argument uses this fact:
Fact: If two different infinite decimals represent the same real number then one ends in all 0's and the other ends in all 9's.
That's a true fact, easy to prove.
>But it is well known that this argument is not >admissible in proofs because it is false.
It passes belief that a person could actually think that such a well known proof could contain such a simple error, without that error being noticed by any of the thousands of mathematicians who've studied the subject for a century or so.