LudovicoVan
Posts:
2,971
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Objection to Cantor's First Proof
Posted:
Jul 26, 2012 10:24 AM
|
|
"Gus Gassmann" <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56c28ea4-8e38-432b-8cbb-d88d93c92ca4@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 11:12 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> Indeed, have you bothered to read what was written at all?
>
> Asshole!
Why get excited?
> I will restore the context of what you so conveniently
> snipped:
>
> On Jul 26, 5:37 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>
>> "David C. Ullrich" <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote in
>> messagenews:cbuv08t9odnda4gva23vn2oed15plf4atv@4ax.com...> "
>
>> > The proof does _not_ begin by assuming that x_1,...
>> > is an enumeration of the reals!
>
>> Unless I am missing something, it definitely does.
>
> It is obvious that you *are* missing something, and this is what I
> commented on. The wikipedia proof, which you yourself linked to, does
> not say anything about an enumeration of reals. Maybe you should read
> what you quote, and then read what people respond. If that is within
> your grasp, of course.
So, as I gather it, "enumeration of reals" to you is a "complete list of
reals". Are you sure? Besides, I thought David was saying something else.
But, as anticipated, I'll have to come back to this discussion later: I am
in a rush now...
-LV
|
|
