
Re: Why does Cantor's diagonal argument fail?
Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 12:46 PM


On 1/18/2014 9:20 AM, John Gibson wrote: > It doesn't fail, it's a widely accepted proof. > > A tard wrote in message > news:bfe74eea095840089db770bf9ea9435d@googlegroups.com... > > Oh wait, you're a Googleposter. Never mind, you hopeless fuckwit. > > > >
Here I have one for you, consider the function as you draw a line from zero to one, and: only a direct line segment [0,1].
Among all the functions about which the antidiagonal doesn't exist, the function you noted, in those proofs, sees a different result, than any other function.
Then, it is widely so that for a given function, it would be accepted. And, there's a structural conterexample to reflect the incompleteness of that, for which it represents a structural counterexample to reflect the incompleteness of that. The functions of here Russell's extraordinary and ordinary infinities, simply enough, has that drawing a line is as mathematically consistent as enumerating the rational points.

