Date: Nov 13, 2012 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
In article <email@example.com>,
"LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Zuhair" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> > On Nov 13, 11:16 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> >> Your alleged argument against the Cantor proof does not work against
> >> either Cantor's proof, nor Zuhair's proof, nor my proof for that matter,
> >> since your N* is irrelevant for all of them.
> > I showed in the Corollary that even if he use N* as the domain of
> > (x_n), still we can prove there is a missing real from the range of
> > (x_n). So Cantor's argument or my rephrasing of it both can easily be
> > shown to be applicable to N* (any set having a bijection with N) as
> > well as N.
> You are simply missing the point there: we don't need N* to disprove Cantor,
> we need N* to go beyond it and the standard notion of countability.
I have yet to see you produces a valid disproof of Cantor either with N
or with N*.