|
|
In article <1159620019.413262.312370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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"
As it is not clear that this sentence refers to any such theorem, I take
leave to doubt "Mueckenh"'s claim.
|
|