Hi Dan,
Let me take your statements a few at a time.
>> Let me see if I am clear about Cantor's method. Given a set S,
>> and some enumeration of that set (i.e., a no one-one onto map from
>> Z^+ to S) we can use the diagonalization method to find an D
>> which is a valid element of S b
Hi Barry,
Let me see if I am clear about Cantor's method. Given a set S, and
some enumeration of that set (i.e., a no one-one onto map from Z^+ to
S) we can use the diagonalization method to find an D which is a valid
element of S but is different from any particular indexed element in
the
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 04:49:34AM -0500, Daniel Grubbs wrote:
Cantor's argument only works by finding a number that satisfies the
criteria for inclusion in the list, yet is nowhere to be found in the
list.
In your first case, the number (1,1,1,1...) is not a natural number,
since it is infinite
Hi.
Bruno could do this better, but I like the practice.
I guess you're trying to demonstrate that the form of Cantor's
argument is invalid, by displaying an example in which it produces an
absurd result.
Start with a set S you want to show is not enumerable. (ie, there is
no one-one ont
Hi Folks,
I joined this list a while ago but I haven't really kept up. Anyway, I
saw the reference to Cantor's Diagonal and thought perhaps someone
could help me.
Consider the set of positive integers: {1,2,3,...}, but rather than
write them in this standard notation we'll use what I'll cal
5 matches
Mail list logo
