|
|
| Ratings Detail: Cantor's diagonal argument |
|
Summary of current ratings for the object:
|
| Clarity: |
2.5 |
 |
| Correctness: |
3 |
 |
| Pedagogy: |
2.5 |
|
| Language: |
3 |
|
| Average: |
2.75 |
|
| Number of votes counted (recent votes): |
8 |
| Number of votes counted (active votes): |
8 |
| All historical votes: |
8 |
Back to the object
Detailed list of ratings:
| User |
Date |
Clarity |
Correctness |
Pedagogy |
Language |
Comment |
| 1and2and4 |
2008-07-28 16:37:19 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
|
| logamath |
2009-04-05 19:11:39 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
This article does not explain Cantor's diagonal argument. If this is truly what Cantor meant, then I have to say Cantor was very confused. The article is vague and incorrect in several ways. I am not convinced the real numbers are uncountable from reading this article. |
Back to the object |
|
|
|
