|
|
Virgil schrieb:
> In article <451dddd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> >
> > The original proof was regarding a complete language using
> > at least two symbols, m and w, no?
>
> Not quite. Two disjoint sets of synbols.
>
> > That was later conflated to a proof about the reals.
>
> It was later shown that it could be modified to form a proof that the
> set of all reals is uncountable.
This was *not* "later shown", but at the very time of publishing in
1890/91 Cantor considered this very proof as the proof of the
uncountability of he reals.
Cantor, in the first paragraph: " Es läßt sich aber von jenem Satze
[uncountability of the reals] ein viel einfacherer Beweis liefern, der
unabhängig von der Betrachtung der Irrationalzahlen ist."
My translation: "Here is a much simpler proof of the theorem
[uncountability of the reals] which is independent of the reference to
irrational numbers"
Regards, WM
|
|