
Re: mathematical infinite as a matter of method
Posted:
May 4, 2013 12:01 AM


On May 4, 12:55 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 5/3/2013 7:54 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >... > > > So you claim > > > ALL ANTIDIAGONALS OF ALL PERMUTATIONS ARE MISSING! > > > I make none of these claims. > > For the record, however, I do not use phrases > like "antidiagonal". I speak of the "constructed > number" or "constructed representation". And, in > this, there is no changing of diagonal elements of > a given list. > > And, you are quite correct that for each n, the > finite initial segment of the constructed number > will correspond with initial segments of listed > elements greater than n. >
RIGHT! This is your *trick* that has you yourselves all fooled!
Next you use a tangential argument that
0.3 0.33 0.333 ..
contains all finite initial segments of 0.333... right?
but 0.333.. is missing from the list!
KABLAMO!!!
CANTOR MUST BE RIGHT!
...
Sheer nonsense though....

Any List can be broken into arbitrary segments.
0. a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 ... 0. a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 ... 0. a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 ... ...
/\  \/
0. < a11 a12 a13 > < a14 a15 a16 > ... 0. < a21 a22 > < a23 a24 a25 a26 > ... 0. < a31 a32 a33 > < a34 > < a35 a36 ... ...
This is how (infinite) data packets are "CHUNKED" in TCPIP

Using this format of REAL NUMBERS
D = <a11 a22 a33> <a44 a55> <a66 a77 a88 a99> ...
AD = ???
The AD contains:
1/ NO UNIQUE SEGMENT 2/ NO COMBINATION OF UNIQUE SEGMENTS
IE. NO UNIQUE DIGIT SEQUENCE
Herc

