Date: Nov 16, 2012 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Zuhair" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> On Nov 16, 11:40 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> >> 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
> You don't have any argument, you just have an unbacked assertion that
> actually springs from your ignorance the matter.
You started by asking me and were given two links with which to play: you
first have failed to say anything useful, now you are just a inconsistent