You are poor reader
From the
> assumption that R is uncountable
you mean countable
we infer the existence
> of a particular function a: R -> R.
Yes
What does not seem
> to be proved is the absence of such a function if R is
> not countable.
What is proved next is that actually such a function cannot exist.
Therefore, (reductio at absurdum) R is uncountable
This is not obvious to me.
>