Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 16, 2012 10:50 PM
|
|
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 16, 8:12 am, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:
>> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c2ac7c88-5567-408d-a520-df4f143f840f@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> <http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/finlayson_injectrationals.pdf>
>>
>> > I'll see if I can understand it: for now, thanks for sharing.
>>
>> A first step is to remove the indexes from the irrationals. In a
>> argument about the supposed countability of the irrationals, to refer to
>> them with indexes (e.g. p_i) looks like begging the question.
>>
>> As it happens, I don't think the indexes do anything but add a layer of
>> confusion. I think you can rename the various quantities without
>> altering the meaning, i.e. rather than talk about irrationals p_i and
>> p_h just use p and r (q is taken).
>>
>
> It's constructive, that.
The key set, Q_<i (which would then be called Q_<p) is empty though.
--
Ben.
|
|
|
|
