```Date: Dec 29, 2012 5:13 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof

On Dec 25, 1:23 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:> On Dec 24, 3:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > You run down the Diagonal  5 8 3 ...>> > IN YOUR MIND - you change each digit ONE AT A TIME>> NO, DUMBASS, YOU DON'T do that.> You WRITE A DEFINITION of A NEW OBJECT that has a property with> respect> TO EVERY row & column OF THE EXISTING list, ALL AT THE SAME time.>>>> > 0.694...>> > but this process NEVER STOPS>> That DOESN'T MATTER, DUMBASS.>>>> > and you NEVER CONSTRUCT A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE!>> NOTHING EVER *NEEDS* to be constructed, DUMBASS!> YOU DON'T represent the function f(x)=2*x byThe derivative   f'(x)=2The integral      f*(x)=x^2--------------------------------NOW f(x)=2*x IS A PROPERLY DEFINED FUNCTIONAND YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE TOWARDS INFINITY> some INFINITE LIST of pairs of doubles that you have to store> in a computer!  You just store a short finite list OF INSTRUCTIONS> that say "if your input is n, let your output be double it".> THE END.  IT DOES NOT MATTER that you can't call all infinity> differnt arguments at once, or in any order. The DEFINITION OF THE> FUNCTION IS STILL ALREADY COMPLETE,> DUMBASS.> DITTO> the definition of the anti-diagonal.> If we are doing decimal digits, then AD(n) = 9-L(n,n).> FOR ALL n.  *THE END*.The End of any Credibility you had left Greene.WHAT'S THE DERIVATIVE  of  AD(n) = 9-L(n,n) ?Applied to the list UTM(index,digitpos) MOD 10 ?Ignoring your error of incompetence re:  0.49999.. <=> 0.50000..Herc
```