Content deleted Content added
Line 509:
:::: Well, seems like the beaut is that the work is never done but the features of its state are the same at whatever point. I can imagine Cantor's devil as a machine that, first, declares it's going to do something abominable (names what and why), reserves ''B-1'' infinite-length registers (''B'' being the base of the numeral system to use), initializes the registers with empty sequences, and then proceeds: at each step, it picks a natural number, generates an (infinite: ???) sequence of digits, seeks a digit on the position that corresponds to the number just picked, makes a set of other digits, and for each of them, adds the digit to a sequence in a reserved register. Of course, it never finishes its work, but whatever the finish can be, we'll see that when it has come, there are only so much natural numbers, but the sequences of digits outnumber them anyway (whatever nonsense those sequences are).
:::: The problem (my problem and all the readers') is that the finish can't be (from the habitual point of view), and thinking of it is meaningless, unless there is such and such reason to accept this way of thinking in this exactly situation. The rest is to understand what are the reasons to accept these things, and I think this is what the article fails to demonstrate, and that's why so many questions from us all. I guess it might be improved in this direction: i.e., show context. -
==Cantor's Nonsense: Pseudo-mathematics at its best.==
| |||