Re: Cantor Diagonal Proof

On 4/7/2025 1:29 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 15:39:52 -0600, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 4/6/2025 2:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 17:22:28 +0100, Andy Walker wrote:

The constructed number will not continue to match any particular member
of the list indefinitely.

Congratulations, you got the point of my proof.

Isn’t the Cantor construction supposed to come up with a number not in the
list, for *any* list?

Hell no! It "comes up with a number" that is not in the list being
discussed ...

Except it doesn’t work with the list being discussed right here.

Was it fear of the math-phobia vaccine that kept you from getting it?
You are quite wrong about an elementary proof and various of your
misunderstandings have been pointed out to you; yet you resist them with
little thought. You have adopted the moves of a troll: for example, you
cut 2.5 average length lines of my email in your response so no one
starting to read here would have any idea what I was talking about nor
what you were objecting to either.

To be fair, your basic error is fairly common in the move from the
studies of arithmetic and high school math (including calculus) to
higher level stuff. The basic problem is the way mathematicians use
quantifiers (things that say "for all x such and such is true" or "there
exist a y such so that something is true about it"). You need to be very
careful about what is being claimed when quantifiers are nested. If you
are a programmer and use interesting languages such as ALGOL, LISP, or
SCHEME to mention a few, this is somewhat the same problem as variable
scoping and visibility rules by the way.

Reread my message and the dozens of others that were trying to help, but
first put your ego in your pocket. If you can't find a way to appreciate
and understand this virtually trivial proof, you wont be able to enjoy
learning and maybe even creating a whole slew of wonderful things/ideas.
It's really worth while.
--
Jeff Barnett