
Re: Why does Cantor's diagonal argument fail?
Posted:
Jan 18, 2014 5:01 PM


On 1/18/2014 11:48 AM, John Gibson wrote: >> 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. > > Wow, another Googleposter who seems to be trying to communicate > something using text, and failing horribly. >
Gibson, there's a modern retro argument that the natural numbers are onto the real numbers of the unit interval: exactly, specifically, precisely, and uniquely.
Followups set to sci.math, sci.logic.
And if there's not, I have one.

