In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Monday, 15 July 2013 19:09:21 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > Just don't assume that in general that For all x, there exist y such phi(x) > > = y Implies There exists y such that for all x, phi(x) = y. As that is > > false in "most" situations. > > In most, but not in the rationals-complete Cantor list, since there exists > never such y = "the anti-diagonal". There exists only every digit of the > anti-diagonal. Result: You assume the existence of a non-existing entity.
In the STANDARD reals, every non-empty set of reals which is bounded above has a least upper bound which is a real. For every n, there is a rational n-digit lower approximation of the antidiagonal and the set of these is a non-empty bounded increasing sequence of real numbers which must have a LUB, and that LUB will be the anti-diagonal.
At least everywhere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. > > I prove that you cannot find digits of the anti-diagonal that are not > together in one and the same line of the list.
In decimal notation one only has 10 digits ts play with, so one would soon run out, but fortunately duplicattes are allowed. > > Of course it is not possible to publish such ideas in journals that are > dominated by cranks and fools.
Actually, those are the only sort of journals in which any of WM's papers would have any chance at all.
> Look at your own hesitation to acknowledge my > arguments although you obviously suspect that there is something > contradictory with what you have been taught.
There is a lot of what WM claims which is contrary to what almost anyone other than WM has been taught, and if WM teaches in his classrooms the garbage that he proclaims here, his students are being cheated. --