Date: Nov 13, 2012 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Uirgil" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> No values which are bounded below by a strictly increasing sequence and
> bounded above by a strictly decreasing sequence are members of either
> Thus proving that, given any sequence of values in R, there must be
> values in R not appearing in that sequence.
I'll have a look at Zuhair's follow-up as soon as I manage, but let me for
now just point out that the above argument is obviously bogus: the rationals
too are dense (have the IVP as Zuhair has called it) and, by the very same
argument, we have proved that the rationals too are not countable... see?