
Re: Peerreviewed 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...
ROW1_1=/=AD_1 > AD=/=ROW1 ROW2_2=/=AD_2 > AD=/=ROW2 ROW3_3=/=AD_3 > AD=/=ROW3 ... 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 about infinite sets is INDUCTION!
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

