Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: CANTOR'S POWESET PROOF <<<<EXPOSED<<<<
Posted:
May 12, 2013 12:49 AM


On May 8, 8:08 am, Jeff Barnett <jbb...@comcast.net> wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote, On 5/6/2013 6:09 PM: > > > > > > > > > > > CANTOR'S POWERSET PROOF > > > IF SET1 has 1  then MYSET skips 1 > > or > > IF SET1 skips 1  then MYSET has 1 > > > AND > > > IF SET2 has 2  then MYSET skips 2 > > or > > IF SET2 skips 2  then MYSET has 2 > > > AND > > > IF SET3 has 3  then MYSET skips 3 > > or > > IF SET3 skips 3  then MYSET has 3 > > > AND > > > IF SET4 has 4  then MYSET skips 4 > > or > > IF SET4 skips 4  then MYSET has 4 > > > AND > > ... > > > SO MYSET IS DIFFERENT TO ALL THOSE SETS! > > > CARDINALITY >  INFINITY  > > Since this was posted in comp.ai.philosophy (but probably not relevant > there), I will respond in this group because this is the only place that > I see it. This isn't Cantor's powerset theorem or proof. The theorem is > simply that one cannot put the powerset of a set in 1to1 with the set > itself. You have made many mistakes here: 1) your enumeration via the > integers limits the whole idea to the denumerable, 2) there is nothing > about 1to1 map here, 3) Cantor's proof works for finite sets too; > infinity doesn't really come into it. > > You may or may not have proved something but I'm not what sure it is. > > Jeff Barnett
MYSET is EXACTLY Cantors missing set.
b = { n  ~n e PS_n }
Herc  www.BLoCKPROLOG.com



