Revision as of 07:43, 3 April 2025 edit 2a02:8109:40b:ef00:d9bc:2cde:be30:15e8 (talk) →Simple proof that this is bullshit: new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:48, 3 April 2025 edit undo MartinPoulter (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 25,599 edits →Simple proof that this is bullshit: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 1,344: When you put the numbers from 0 to (exclusively) 1 on the right, but read them from right to left, what do you see? They become the natural numbers! But according to Cantor's argument this means that the set of natural numbers must be bigger than itself! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:40B:EF00:D9BC:2CDE:BE30:15E8\|2A02:8109:40B:EF00:D9BC:2CDE:BE30:15E8]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:40B:EF00:D9BC:2CDE:BE30:15E8\|talk]]) 07:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC) :They don't become the natural numbers. Almost all of them will be infinitely long, and there are no infinitely long natural numbers. [[User:MartinPoulter\|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter\|talk]]) 08:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

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