Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Replies: 23   Last Post: Nov 2, 2012 1:46 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Hercules ofZeus Posts: 27 Registered: 9/19/11
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted: Nov 1, 2012 4:03 AM

On Nov 1, 8:38 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> > irrelevant to our purposes here, unless those disputes can explicitly
> > show an invalid step in this very simple proof.)

>

it DOES NOT HOLD UP TO INDUCTION!!!!!

Examine the lower level Decimal Proof Technique...

...
AND SO ON!

THIS IS THE INDUCTIVE STEP

P(n) -> P(S(n))

---------------

But P(1) DOESNT HOLD BY ITSELF!!!

Proviging a single digit of the diagonal is WORTHLESS, even for ROW 1!

---------------

If you claim this is a proof in PREDICATE CALCULUS
then the only Proof Method in PREDICATE CALCULUS

p(1) & p(n)->p(s(n))
-> ALL(n) p(n)

Herc
--
if( if(t(S),f(R)) , if(t(R),f(S)) ).
if the sun's out then it's not raining
ergo
if it's raining then the sun's not out

Date Subject Author
10/31/12 Jesse F. Hughes
10/31/12 LudovicoVan
10/31/12 Jesse F. Hughes
10/31/12 LudovicoVan
10/31/12 Virgil
10/31/12 Jesse F. Hughes
10/31/12 LudovicoVan
11/1/12 Virgil
10/31/12 Jesse F. Hughes
10/31/12 LudovicoVan
10/31/12 Jesse F. Hughes
11/1/12 J. Antonio Perez M.
11/1/12 Graham Cooper
11/1/12 Graham Cooper
11/1/12 Hercules ofZeus
11/1/12 Jesse F. Hughes
11/2/12 Graham Cooper