Date: Nov 16, 2012 4:20 AM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

In article <k84u6j$u4e$>,
"LudovicoVan" <> wrote:

> "Zuhair" <> wrote in message

> > On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <> 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.

Since the entire issue is about the "standard notion of countability",
we should settle everything about that before trying to go beyond it.

So at present any argument "beyond" the "standard notion of
countability" is totally irrelevant to this thread.