Date: Dec 25, 2012 10:23 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof
In article

<aa637598-f327-464f-954b-9cdbe4c875c7@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since the constructed string must differ from each string listed in L in

> > a way that gives it a different value from that listed string, how can

> > it possibly still be among a set of values from which it is by

> > construction excluded?

> >

>

> the size of the string is not fixed.

The one to be constructed is constructed to be of the same length as

the ones listed.

>

> You construct a portion, you construct another portion, and you never

> stop.

One usually creates a rule which defines all the digits of the

construction simultaneously.

>

>

> Take the Transpose Plane

>

> +----->

> | 0. 666..

> | 0. 556..

> | 0. 666..

> | 0. 666..

> | ...

> v

>

> Your construction is now the DIAGONAL of that plane.

>

> 0 . T(1,1) T(2,2) T(3,3) ...

>

> +----->

> | 0. 6 ..

> | 0. 5 ..

> | 0. 6..

> | 0.

> | ...

> v

>

>

> so your claim is

>

> 0 . T(3,1) T(4,2) T(1,3) ...

>

> is ALSO absent from L(x,y) right?

>

> That's 0.666..

>

> and your claim is

>

> 0 . T(2,1) T(4,2) T(1,3) ...

>

> is ALSO absent from L(x,y)

>

> That's 0.566..

>

> So every digit you add to the missing string is arbitrary.

>

> Herc

You have not been listening, then:

The string called the antidiagonal differs in at least

one place from each listed string, so is not listed.

--