Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 20-nov.-07, à 23:39, Barry Brent wrote :
You're saying that, just because you can *write down* the missing
sequence (at the beginning, middle or anywhere else in the list), it
follows that there *is* no missing sequence. Looks pretty wrong to me.
Cantor's proof disqualifies any candidate enumeration. You respond
by saying, "well, here's another candidate!" But Cantor's procedure
disqualified *any*, repeat *any* candidate enumeration.
Barry Brent
Torgny, I do agree with Barry. Any bijection leads to a contradiction,
even in some effective way, and that is enough (for a classical
logician).
What do you think of this "proof"?:
Let us have the bijection:
0 -------- {0,0,0,0,0,0,0,...}
1 -------- {1,0,0,0,0,0,0,...}
2 -------- {0,1,0,0,0,0,0,...}
3 -------- {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,...}
4 -------- {0,0,1,0,0,0,0,...}
5 -------- {1,0,1,0,0,0,0,...}
6 -------- {0,1,1,0,0,0,0,...}
7 -------- {1,1,1,0,0,0,0,...}
8 -------- {0,0,0,1,0,0,0,...}
...
omega --- {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,...}
What do we get if we apply Cantor's Diagonal to this?
--
Torgny
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Nov 21 2007 - 11:33:47 PST