Date: Nov 16, 2012 6:08 AM
Author: Zaljohar@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

On Nov 16, 11:40 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@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


You don't have any argument, you just have an unbacked assertion that
actually springs from your ignorance the matter.

Zuhair