Am Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 09:03:43 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil: > In article <email@example.com>, > > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > Am Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 04:02:09 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > > > > > > I did not. I know Cantor's first "proof" very well. > > > > > > If you didn't keep reading, how do you know it was a rendition of Cantor's > > > > First Proof? > > > > > > I saw it immediately. > > > > While it does start out like Cantor's proof. if differs in a number of > > details, just as did my own proof pubished here not too long ago. >
This is the starting point of Cantor's first proof and all its variants: Let a sequence be gicen. With this assumption the limit is given as a defined number. To waste all naturals for the enumeration of the terms of the sequence is a very simple trick. Not convincing. |N could even be wasted for half of the terms. Or, after one sequence has been enumerated, the existence of further sequences could be used as a "proof" of uncountable sets.