On 5/2/2013 7:53 PM, Hercules ofZeus wrote: > On Apr 21, 5:39 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >> In article <Me6dnerBAcAL8O7MnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@giganews.com>, >> >> fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >>> This is a easy, readable paper of the same >>> title by Kanamori. A historical analysis >>> of how infinity entered mathematical discourse. >> >>> http://kurt.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp/~fuchino/xpapers/infinity.pdf >> >>> OP: Marc Garcia at FOM >> >>> (Virgil -- you will find a familiar proof >>> at the bottom of page 5) >> >> Yes! A nice version of it, too. >> >> And a nice paper which shows just how far out of any real mathematics WM >> has put himself. >> > > there is no _method_ to any of it though... > > DEFINE digit1 is different to row1, digit2 is different to row2, and > so on... > therefore infinite strings are bigger sets than finite strings... > > Its merely ONTO, SURJECTIVE definitions thrown directly onto > a good optical effect of looking down the infinite plane at an angle > > no new digit sequence is EVER constructed using this 'method' and this > is provable. >
Well, I am not sure as to which part you are objecting.
I know you have your own difficulties with the Cantor diagonal argument.
I applaud you for recognizing the role of projective geometry as the underlying basis of one-to-one correspondence.