That isn't a bijection. Barry
On Nov 21, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote: > 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 > > > Dr. Barry Brent [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~barryb0/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---