On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 03:36:24 -0700, mueckenh wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 August 2014 20:47:54 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: >> >> After all, either WM hides his False Logic > > > Could you help me to identify the mistake? > > Please tell me what you think is the difference between Cantor's forall > n: the entries enumerated by 1 to n of the purported bijection |N <--> > |R differ from the antidiagonal and my forall n: Numbers 1 to n leave > infinitely many not indexed rationals in the purported complete > bijection |N <--> Q+.
You really don't get it? That is impressive.
The antidiagonal is one and the same for all and any n.
Your sets of "not indexed rationals" must change permanently. Given any such set, take any number in it, write it as a/b, and it will be "indexed" before your n arrives at (a+b)^2.
And that is not only something WE think is a difference, it IS a difference, even if you should be too stupid to grasp it. On a slightly more technical level, Cantor's statement can be written with one quantifier: An (r_n != d), whereas your statement requires two quantifiers: An E(a set s_n of non-indexed rationals, depending on n). To get your asserted conclusion you would have to remove the existential quantifier, by an appropriate argument to get a never changing set of non- indexed rationals and not by endless repetition of never changing nonsense.