Date: Jan 4, 2013 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
On Jan 4, 8:13 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Dear fom I'm not against Uncountability, I'm not against Cantor's
> > argument. I'm saying that Cantor's argument is CORRECT. All what I'm
> > saying is that it is COUNTER-INTUITIVE as it violates the
> > Distinguishability argument which is an argument that comes from
> > intuition excerised in the FINITE world. That's all.
> But you've neither explained the meaning of your second premise nor
> given any indication why it is plausible.
I did but you just missed it.
My second premise is that finite distinguishability is countable.
What I meant by that is that we can only have countably many
distinguishable finite initial segments of reals. And this has already
been proved. There is no plausibility here, this is a matter that is
> Jesse F. Hughes
> "How lucky we are to be able to hear how miserable Willie Nelson could
> imagine himself to be." -- Ken Tucker on Fresh Air