Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 263
Posted:
May 17, 2013 8:34 PM


In article <ca34a38711e5477f9115f5a1ce2fd7db@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cantors does not say that there is no more than one such set, he just > > said that there is at least one, and I have provided at least one, in > > fact uncountably many of them. > > > > > I want to see the FORMULA > > { n  n ~e f(n) } > > WORK ON > > f(1) = { 1 , 3 , 6 } > f(2) = { 1 , 5 , 11 } > f(3) = { 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 } > f(4) = { 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 } > > f(n) = N  n>4 > > > ALL VALUES OF f() ARE SPECIFIED. > >  > > Does your favorite Cantors formula
It is not my formula at all, but Cantor's > > S = { n  n ~e f(n) } > > WORK on the GIVEN f ? > > If it does  WHAT IS S ?
For the given f, ask yourself: Is 1 in f(1)? Is 2 in f(2)? Is 3 in f(3)? Is 4 in f(4)? Is n in f(n) for n > 4? And then work out which will be in { n in N : ~ n in f(n) }.
And if you can't, why should anyone want to spoil such perfect ignorance?
> > >  > > Not interested in any other missing sets or explanations ABOUT S. > > JUST WHAT IS S given that f ? > Why should anyone want to spoil your perfect ignorance? 

