Date: Nov 16, 2012 3:40 AM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

"Zuhair" <zaljohar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6a63fbfd-f7e7-458f-af65-fae2c805c951@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
<snip>

>> 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.

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


That's cool, maybe in another while you'll actually get what the argument
was.

-LV