On 12 Apr., 23:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 8:40 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Nope. A is about all single elements.-
Then Cantor's argument: For every n: d differs from q_n is not implying that the anti-diagonal d can be excluded from the whole list (q_n)?