Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic, sci.physics
From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 00:13:09 -0400
Local: Fri, Nov 2 2012 12:13 am
Subject: Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
"LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> writes:Son, I know about induction. This structure is not inductive in the
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
>> There is not a single thing "wrong" or suspect with N*. Of course, if
> Of course we extend induction too, and there is no problem there either.
usual sense. (It is coinductive.)
The best you can do is this:
If P(0) and Pn -> P(n+1) *and* P(oo) then An in N* Pn.
But that's a god-awful hack made by adding the condition that P holds of
Say, you were telling me yesterday that Cantor's theorem is invalid.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.