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



Re: § 534 Finis
Posted:
Aug 13, 2014 3:45 PM


mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de writes:
> On Wednesday, 13 August 2014 17:02:30 UTC+2, Martin Shobe wrote: <snip> >> Yet from that you conclude, "No enumeration with Q+ is possible.". >> (Which is about N, obviously.) <snip> > My proof shows that all natural numbers leave rationals without index > in Cantor's asserted complete bijection. This is undisputable truth.
Yet all you do is prove a trivial theorem about a sequences of sets of rationals and then invite people to "examine himself whether he is willing to believe that nevertheless all rational numbers can be enumerated"[1]. This implied conclusion is your main purpose. You should have made that the theorem in post 533[1], but you couldn't. You can't even write it out in what you once called "the correct way"[2], much less derive it, in connected steps from the theorem you can write out. You are doing mathematics by innuendo.
[1] MessageID: <06f21aaecaae4be687649d05f5e3c717@googlegroups.com> [2] MessageID: <8aaff1fe9ffe4153b84e83b650527dac@googlegroups.com>  Ben.



