Content deleted Content added
Ossi~enwiki (talk | contribs) |
Ossi~enwiki (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 48:
:::: This is the same commonest mistake in Cantor's diagonal argument --- once you have thrown in ''c'' and claim a complete list of the real numbers then you're done; a re-application of Cantor's diagonal argument does present a number (different from ''c'') but that new anti-diagonal number was included in the list when ''c'' was the anti-diagonal number. You merely made a new enumeration or re-arranged the row-listed real numbers to get a different anti-diagonal number! → I hope you teach my counter-counterargument to your counterargument in your math classes ... Best regards ... [BenCawaling@Yahoo.com (16 Oct 2006)]
::::: "...but that new anti-diagonal number was included in the list when ''c'' was the anti-diagonal number." No it wasn't! [[User:Ossi|Ossi]] 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
:"Cantor's first proof" is new to me, and I have to say it's delightful. I agree that mathematicians generally believe the diagonal argument to be Cantor's first. However, I'm not completely convinced that this isn't really a diagonal argument in disguise. I need to think about this a bit. [[User:Dmharvey|Dmharvey]] [[Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png]] [[User talk:Dmharvey|Talk]] 22:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| |||