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

Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1283956705 by Trovatore (talk) I suppose you can argue that infinitely many leading zeroes don't matter. Anyway the point isn't worth discussing
Line 1,062:
: As a result, you just re-invented the Cantor's scheme, which was '''convoluted, inconsistent and hard to follow''' (timestamp 1:30).
: Please note the difference in presence or absence of the zero label is out of scope here. I just comment on the claim about the 'navigational scheme' I quote above.
: The remaining comment at timestamp 1:30 results from a misunderstanding: the Cantor's pairing function was not invented for this particular diagonal argument and is not directly used in it. It is an example of <math>\mathbb N^2\leftrightarrow\mathbb N</math> bijection and if you want to apply it to pairs (numerator,&nbsp;denominator) of fraction, you just need to redefine the ___domain to get <math>\mathbb N\times\mathbb N^+ \leftrightarrow \mathbb N</math> . --[[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) 00:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 
== no reals ==