Date: Nov 14, 2012 5:40 AM Author: Zaljohar@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS On Nov 14, 10:18 am, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:

> In article

> <6a63fbfd-f7e7-458f-af65-fae2c805c...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> > > "Zuhair" <zaljo...@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. In

> > > fact, that there is a bijection between N* and N is a bogus argument too,

> > > as

> > > the matter is rather about different order types.

>

> > > -LV

>

> > Now I think I'm beginning to somewhat perhaps understand your

> > argument. I think (I'm not sure though) that what you want to say is

> > that when we are having arguments with "LIMITS" then we must design

> > the whole argument such that the Limit comes from the sequence, and if

> > this design was not made then the argument is inherently deficient as

> > far as the truth of inferences derived from it is concerned. So what

> > you are trying to say is that Cantor's argument began with incomplete

> > arsenal so it ended up with misleading inferences. You are making an

> > argument at TRUTH level of the matter, and yet it is concerned with

> > formal technicality as well, which is an argument beyond the strict

> > formal technicality.

>

> > Anyhow if I'm correct, this form of reasoning for it to stand the

> > quest, then there must be a clear line of justification for it. For

> > instance the argument about whether the reals are countable actually

> > means literally whether there is a bijection between the reals and N,

> > so N is at the heart of the subject. Now to go and say that

> > countability of the reals (which means bijectivity of reals to N) can

> > only be reached about by circumventing N and using another countable

> > infinite set N* as the domain for any sequence in an argument using

> > limits is really strange somehow.

>

> It is worse, mathematically speaking, than merely strange, it is

> nonsense.

>

>

>

> > What you are having is the following:

>

> > [1]When we use N as the domain of injections (x_n), (a_n) and (b_n),

> > then Cantors argument PROVES and SHOWS that there is a real that is

> > not in the range of those functions.

>

> > [2]When we use N* as the domain of injections (x_n), (a_n) and (b_n),

> > then Cantor's argument will seize from working in the same way to show

> > the missing real.

>

> ?"Cease"?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > [3]However we also have the corollary that even when we use N* as the

> > domain of those functions, still we can by a single common well

> > defined way define another sequence with exactly the same range of

> > those functions but from domain N, and we can apply Cantor's argument

> > and SHOW a missing real in the rang of those functions!

>

> > Now you call [1] deficient, [2] apt to reality standards [3] bogus.

>

> > Why? because we used N in an argument that involves a higher order

> > concept that must use N* instead. (That's your reply).

>

> > But again: why? what is the higher order part of the argument that you

> > see it demanding circumventing the heart of the subject (which is N

> > really) to some N*.

>

> > Is it the definition of Limit.

>

> > But limit is defined in this argument as the least upper bound, and I

> > don't see in the definition of L that I wrote (which is the standard

> > by the way) anything that has to do with necessarily picking it up

> > from some Omega_th end point? that has no meaning at all, so why?

>

> > Should I adopt this rational of yours then I'd ask you: why not say

> > pick L from the -1_th starting point. i.e. choose your domain to be

> > {-1,0,1,2,3,...} since this clearly also preclude Cantor's argument

> > and you clearly can make L be the -1_th digit of (x_n) [Remember a_0

> > is x_0, so x_{-1} lies "before" a_0].

>

> > Or you'll say that {-1,0,2,3,...} is also a kind of high order

> > countable set?

>

> > Your argument is simply shunning one of the most important two sets in

> > this argument, that is N, and using some replacement, without any

> > clear justification.

>

> > Zuhair

>

> Right! The fact that one can make the proof seem false by changing it

> does not make the original proof false.

Actually he is changing the requirement for a proof, i.e. what

constitutes a proof, to him he thinks (apparently) that the question

involves high order principles that cannot be met by using N as a

domain, But he didn't give any line of justification for that.

Zuhair