Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:30, 15 June 2023

Revision as of 16:52, 4 January 2024

Line 1,277:

:My previous posts failed to disprove the CDA, primarily for not recognizing the real flaw. Persistence won.

:It's non of the factors debated, but so subtle, it's almost invisible. Following the policy of not submitting original work here, I won't. Just informing the moderators and those who were deceived, and those who are free thinkers, it exists.[[User:Phyti|Phyti]] ([[User talk:Phyti|talk]])phyti. [[User:Phyti|Phyti]] ([[User talk:Phyti|talk]]) 16:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

::I have returned to one of the original objections to Cantor's diagonal argument. Despite the fact that finite lists are not square, using his (v, u) coordinate system in his 1891 paper for all v, he assumes v=u for an infinite list. The progression of the geometric form of finite lists is exponential with a trend opposite to square.

::No one has ever formed an infinite list.

::Here is an example of a finite list with {0,1} substituted for {m,w} showing no missing sequence.

::2^3 = 8

:: position

::List 1 2 3

::000 x

::001 x x

::010 x x

::011 x x x

::100

::101 x

::110 x

::111 x x

::Since the list is random order, the 2nd diagonal is arbitrarily selected.

::D= 011.

::Its negation E (=not D) excludes 0 from position 1, and 1 from positions 2 and

::3.

::E=100, as the only sequence NOT excluded.

::A sequence cannot differ from itself [[User:Phyti|Phyti]] ([[User talk:Phyti|talk]]) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia mathematical arguments]]