Date: Dec 25, 2012 12:05 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof
In article

<8526068c-c873-4164-88f9-8717127e3bfa@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 25, 4:48 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Dec 24, 4:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > +----->

> > > | 0. 542..

> > > | 0. 983..

> > > | 0. 143..

> > > | 0. 543..

> > > | ...

> > > v

> >

> > > OK - THINK

> >

> > Induction

>

> only in the HR sense Will!

>

> OK some great replies here!

>

> I think WM point is correct here, the ENTIRE LIST can exist

>

> +----->

> | 0. 542..

> | 0. 983..

> | 0. 143..

> | 0. 543..

> | ...

> v

>

> each digit a FINITE distance from the Origin.

>

> There is no constructible issue with the List itself.

>

> ----------------------

>

> And GG has a good point, once he saw my 2 claims Sequitur together

>

> [1] you change each digit ONE AT A TIME

> 0.694...

> but this process NEVER STOPS

>

> [2] and you NEVER CONSTRUCT A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE!

Do you deny that f(x) = x^2 and g(x) = 2*x+3 define real functions,

i.e., functions taking arbirary real numbers as arguments and producing

from them appropriate real numbers as values?

It you accept them as functions why balk at functions from |N to

the set of decimal digits, interpreted as reals in [0,1]?

>

> ----------------------

>

> this is actually 100% correct under Static and Process analysis.

>

> ----------------------

>

> GG counter example of

>

> f(x) = 2*x

>

> HOLDING for the infinite domain

> is a good point however, although

> he had to hand pick the example so

> it doesn't contradict

>

> [1]

> [1]->[2]

> [2]

>

> You never construct a new digit Sequence

> QED

>

>

> Merry Xmas!

>

> Herc

> --

> www.CAMGIRLS.com

> TOTAL: $2834 2012-12-21 Fri

> Not the End of the World!

--