On 12 Apr., 18:25, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 10:10 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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. > > You have things the wrong way round. We have agreed that in > general knowing that something is true for every element > of a collection does not show it is true for the collection > that is A does not imply C.
C is not about any collections but simply about all single elements.
> It is up to you to provide evidence > that in this case A does imply C.
Cantor shows that by the diagonal argument (A) the n-th line can be removed from the set of potential duplicates of d. He concludes that (C) every line can be removed from the set of potential duplicates of d.