disgusting terrsts of foreign gypsies foreign terrorst grp/cult

 yep i think when rethinking cantor's diagonalization, 

i thought for indexing a natural numbers from being kernelled from what is surmised as real numbers.

that indexing of sets becomes nonindexable in case the kernel itself is infinite  is maybe what Cantor tried to mean maybe.

since his original argument does not make sense. 

but then n-diadic kernelling to indexes also makes sense. 

so why consider such irrational concepts like these like N? its jiust one recursionary definition. 

 

I truly agree to the refutation of cantor's original description since it lacks clear definition of what cantor meant i think. 

it only makes sense to prove that if you have infinite kernel count (--> which is possible in case of function concept )  of indexing from a set to indexes, it means then thats a second type of infinity. 

but this is rather a shape of extension of infinity. 

but the pseudo code there does not depict this neatly of changing diagonal numbers. that example does not clearly proves that when youu change the diagonal of every number in infinite list, you obtain something that does not exist ->  which is contrary to the infinite definition there indeed imho intuitionistically. 

the generator of index there naturally would include that also in infinitely generated numbers  so that pseudo code seems invalid.

more valid definitions of types of infinity would been,  i think t hese type shapes of infinity of 

kernel maps to N indexes  group theoretically then then:

when its 2N to N indexing map (not bijectively), its kernels has some expected 2 size.

but the thing of the extension of infiinity discussion becomes more logical when you carry it to the functions/maps discussion with considering the indexing as Kernels alike (yep need to revisit this but

what i mean is ->

if you have a kernel   than you with normal subgroup concept can be used as an indexing method to cover all the mapped group's elements. 

then  i think thats much better how to define shape of infinity types. 

since mappings have all kernels right? as far as i remember.  and then so,    it is all alike when kernel is finite. but i think the more distinctive thing is when kerenel size itself were infinite. that i would consider a more unusual type of infinity.  in indexing concept. since indexing is rather a kernelling concept where a group's numbers are traversed by its normal subgroup of kernel to an indexer group right? 

hmm seems as i might need to revisit these topics to relearn forgotten topics in these group theory.

but intuitive maths said before proof by contradiction is not the very intuitionistic maths approach. 

so then i investigated cantor's lemma and then thought these. 

but then i have to revisit group theory studying later on.  to revisit/relearn these basic knowledge there. 

but whenever someone says indexing, i find kernel as the thingy to conceptualize it.  nonbijective indexer normal subgroup which can traveerse from A-> B (B is the indexer) with kernel of the mapping. 

this is imho what conceptualizes indexing concept. 

then the what is more infinite then infinity of N would then be about the kernel cardinality of such map.  

so i wondered the shape of the recursively infinite kernel defintiions where each kernel is infinite size. 

some function which has infinite kernel size :) 

then could be an alternate shape in representation theory optimization library :) 

so even if group theory is not flexible(extensive/covering) alike category theory, its the units/unit stuff of category theory alike.   

hmm i need to also revisit schur's lemma.

but this must be something like the infinite kernel having function definitions must be something like naturally isomorphic to such functions without reduction. 

some shape of infinity thats unique and same along (naturally isomorphic to all  such functions) 

other than all shapes of  infinity must be a finite kernel size possibly. 

so shapes of groups and representation theory discussions. although forgot group  theory slightly, need to revisit. but came up to when discussing cantor's lemma (and objection to its pseudocode by thinking its not intuitionistic maths wise very definitive) and then thought about these and specifically thought of effort of Cantor creating definitions specializations of infinity,  but even initiative makes sense, i believe group  theoretic shapes of kernels type infinity discussion is more covering/definitive.

so i think most of maths significant topics is about representation theory and group theory but need to revisit those very important study topics during awhile. 

why i thought these since i got up at 2:30. then coded some then watched space documentary which said universe is infinite possibly. then i thought of cantor's lemma to thought whether eigenstates could naturally be infinite but then thought of these.

infinity concept i started to query cantor's infinity definition. and found its not fully definitive in intuitionistic maths side. 

and agreed to the mathoverflow discussions' rejection doer person's idea whom later gave up rejection idea but i also agree to rejection idea of the lemma.