On Nov 16, 11:40 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:email@example.com...> On Nov 14, 12:45 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> You are simply missing the point there: we don't need N* to disprove > >> Cantor, > >> we need N* to go beyond it and the standard notion of countability. In > >> fact, that there is a bijection between N* and N is a bogus argument too, > >> as > >> the matter is rather about different order types. > > > Now I think I'm beginning to somewhat perhaps understand your > > argument. > > That's cool, maybe in another while you'll actually get what the argument > was. > > -LV
You don't have any argument, you just have an unbacked assertion that actually springs from your ignorance the matter.