In this comment I lay to rest Cantor's diagonal argument for good.

In my debate with Mark Chu Carroll, I was banned before I could even get this far.

There is not a single proof that the Diagonal Argument is in fact true. Nowhere on the internet or anywhere else.

The argument originally states that the set of "real" numbers in the interval (0,1) could not be listed. There was no mention of a one-to-one correspondence (bijection).

This statement is very quickly dismissed in the following diagram which lists (represents) every single one of the numbers in the interval (0,1):

Attachment 637
But mainstream baboons did not stop here. They reinterpreted Cantor's rot in the context of a one to one correspondence between the "real" numbers in the interval (0,1) and the natural numbers, that is, an enumeration.

I shall demonstrate now that we can place these "real" numbers in a one-to-one correspondence with a unique sequence which we'll call the index.

Every index sequence will be preceded by either +, - or *.

For example,

The number 0.3 has an index sequence of +3

0.03 has an index sequence of +03

0.(3) has an index sequence of -3

0.0(3) has an index sequence of -03

0.(15) has an index sequence of -15

0.26 has an index sequence of +26

0.14159 has an index sequence of *14159 (fractional part of pi)

0.391 has an index sequence of +391

As you can see, every

**index sequence is unique**. What I have done is placed the "real" numbers in the interval (0,1) in correspondence with a unique index sequence, that is, I have created a

**bijection!** In this scheme I have ENUMERATED the numbers in the interval (0,1). The decimal tree

**represents** the numbers and the unique sequence index

**enumerates** the same.

Now, if a bijection exists, then by mainstream theory, the interval must be countable, which is contrary to Cantor's claims.

So, provided one accepts that all the numbers in the interval (0,1) can be represented as decimals, then the "real" numbers are indeed countable.

This is the simplest proof that Cantor was a delusional idiot.

**Disclaimer:** I do not agree the "real" numbers are countable because one can't count a set containing non-existent objects. My tree in fact, only contains rational numbers, but moron academics think it contains all the "real" numbers in the interval (0,1).

## Bookmarks