On Nov 1, 7:09 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 1:41 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > But the Base Step does not hold for ANY SINGLE value of k. > > > The argument YOU JUST MADE holds FOR ANY value of k : > > > BASE: 1 e f(1) then ~1 e MISS > > > > ~1 e f(1) then 1 e MISS > > > ergo ~MISS = f(1) > > > By induction, ~MISS=f(any k), i.e., ~MISS e f. > > Nice work George! Working out the missing base step in my argument! > > GIVEN ANY POWERSET PROOF OF UNCOUNTABILITY, > THERE IS A MISSING BASE STEP NOT IN THE BODY OF THAT PROOF! > > |N| = |PN| > > BWWHAHAHAHAH! Now that's funny! > > Herc
We have , in most instances, regarded the base as equaling one- not knowing internally that the "base" actually represents a real existence and power- and significant quantifying meaning.