Date: Nov 13, 2012 5:01 PM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

In article <k7uf0m$v1r$1@dont-email.me>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> "Zuhair" <zaljohar@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3929e6b6-2932-401d-ba0a-0a440bb18277@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> > On Nov 13, 11:16 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> <snip>
>

> >> 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*.