Peer review my wikipedia.org article

[Dissipate]

Scroll down to "Another way to prove Cantor's theorem". That is where my writing begins.

Text

If anyone finds any inaccuracies, please tell me.

 

[Corporate Thug]

wow, soooo complicated

 

[screw3d]

sh1t it's math!! *runs away*

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: shady06
wow, soooo complicated

Not really. I try to take you through the proof in baby steps. I think anyone can understand it if they click the links of the words they don't understand.

The other proof in the article is nice and quick, but I figured it might confuse a lot of people. Since the proof is so profound, I want people out there to go: "oooohhh" and "ahhhhhhhhhh". Basically, if you don't know, it is proof that different kinds of infinities of different sizes exist.

 

[Legendary]

Makes sense - more sense than the top proof. :thumbsup:

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Legendary
Makes sense - more sense than the top proof. :thumbsup:

Did you have any prior knowledge about the proof?

 

[beer]

I thought the point of Wikipedia was to put methods that have already been established and passed rigor and community acceptance and not a proof, however accurate it may be, that has not gone through the process?

I can't dispute tha validity of your proof, but it sets a dangeorus precedent in questonable proofs are accepted in the wiki

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: beer
I thought the point of Wikipedia was to put methods that have already been established and passed rigor and community acceptance and not a proof, however accurate it may be, that has not gone through the process?

I can't dispute tha validity of your proof, but it sets a dangeorus precedent in questonable proofs are accepted in the wiki

This proof has already been established.. If you understood the proof given in the first portion of the article, you would realize that my proof is the same, the only difference being formality. For instance, in the other guy's proof he formally defines the subset that is not in f. I describe this subset in plain English. In my article the subset is N. That's the main difference right there.

I'm not asking for a peer review of the proof itself. I'm just asking for people to turn up any slight inaccuracies.

 

[Calin]

Congratulations 😀

It must be so fulfilling to work for others, especially things the others cannot understand 😀

:beer:

Calin