• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Yeah, OP seems to be assuming a continuous mapping. It still works if you don’t, but the standard way to prove it is the more abstract “diagonal argument”.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      But then a simple comeback would be, “well perhaps there is a non-continuous mapping.” (There isn’t one, of course.)

      “It still works if you don’t” – how does red’s argument work if you don’t? Red is not using cantor’s diagonal proof.