**Authors:** Philip Molyneux

This paper critically examines the Cantor Diagonal Argument (CDA) that is used in set theory to draw a distinction between the cardinality of the natural numbers and that of the real numbers. In the absence of a verified English translation of the original 1891 Cantor paper from which it is said to be derived, the CDA is discussed here using a consensus from the forms found in a range of published sources (from "popular" to "professional"). Some general comments are made on these sources. The discussion then focusses on the CDA as applied to the correspondence between the set of the natural numbers, and the set of real numbers in the open range (0,1) in their expansion from decimal digits (0.123… etc.). Four points critical of the CDA are raised: (1) The conventional presentation of the CDA forms a putative new real number (X) from the "diagonal" of the chosen list of real numbers and which is therefore not on this initial list; however, it omits to consider that it may indeed be on the later part of the list, which is never exhausted however far the "diagonal" list is extended. (2) This aspect, combined with the fact that X is still composed of decimal digits, that is, it is a real number as defined, indicates that it must be on the later part of the list, that is, it is not a "new" number at all. (3) The conventional application of the CDA apparently leads to one putative "new" real number (X); however, the logical extension of this in its "exhaustive" application, that is, by using all possible different methods of alteration of the decimal digits on the "diagonal", and by reordering the list in all possible ways, leads to a list of putative "new" real numbers that become orders of magnitude longer than the chosen "diagonal" list. (4) The CDA is apparently considered to be a method that is applicable generally; however, testing this applicability with the natural numbers themselves leads to this contradiction. Following on from this, it is found that it indeed is possible to set up a one-to-one correspondence between the natural numbers and the real numbers in (0,1), that is, ! ⇔ "; this takes the form: … a3 a2 a1 ⇔ 0. a1 a2 a3 …, where the right hand extension of the natural number is intended to be a mirror image of the left hand extension of the real number. This may be extended to the general case of real numbers - that is, not limited to the range (0,1) - by intercalation of the digit sequence of its decimal fraction part into the sequence of the natural number part, giving the one-to-one-correspondence: … A3 a3 A2 a2 A1 a1 ⇔ ... A3 A2 A1. a1 a2 a3 … Additionally, a form of the CDA was presented by Wilfred Hodges in his 1998 critical review of "hopeless papers" dealing with the CDA; this form is also examined from the same viewpoints, and to the same conclusions. Finally, some comments are made on the concept of "infinity", pointing out that to consider this as an entity is a category error, since it simply represents an absence, that is, the absence of a termination to a process.

**Comments:** 10 Pages.

**Download:** **PDF**

[v1] 2017-08-14 10:23:58

[v2] 2017-08-22 04:28:33

[v3] 2017-08-24 10:23:39

[v4] 2018-03-14 06:03:39

**Unique-IP document downloads:** 753 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

**Add your own feedback and questions here:**

*You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful. *