```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.> > HercYou have not been listening, then:   The string called the antidiagonal differs in at least    one place from each listed string, so is not listed.--
```