I need to do an experiment to prove the existance of a mathematical phenomenom I am tired to see it working in ultra-secret meetings with isolated people... and this sounds weird, but people struggle to manage mentaly what they saw REMEMBER: two references, please

The experiment is really simple, cheap and quick It only requires blackboards, three sessions that sums in totall ( in a good environment ) 5 hours (one morning) and... at least 8 mathematicians It can not be faced "alone" WHY? Because you are going to "shortcircuit"

I did all I could, as I could, without being mathematician, and not academic, and not being trained inside the inner culture to ask stuff I am a chaotic extern agent, with two official weird references, WITH AN AMAZING MATHEMATICAL RESULT... too much great for me...

I know you won't believe me, but if we do the experiment, you will be able to see EXACTLY what I am going to say... so you will not need to believe me... you can "suffer" it, if you are brave enough BUT I NEED PUBLIC TESTIMONY... why? Because you are not believing me... hahaha

AT THE END OF THE EXPERIMENT 75% of the matheticians, 6 of the 8, will end saying, very angry, and very sure about themself, SWEARING, for the glory of their mothers, that:

An injectivity like r: P(N) ->N EXISTS And that they GUARANTEE EXACTLY the property that makes it possible It can be repeated with anyone you want, that makes the experiment, following the rules and with respect

The "trick" and the final step I am not able to do, because I am a nobody without resources Is to put everybody under the same roof, and make them all to hear, what the others are saying very sure about themself Like I said, it takes 5 hours, it is hard to resume... Because

EVEN when tools are really simple, and that they are a LOT... people never SUSPECT the final step In fact, the first step, is explaining the final step and what is going to happen It does not matter, it will happen anyways I am tired of seeing it with several mathematicians

Off course, you are thinking they were fools That is what they said, before ending exactly where I said them in the beginning Can you help me to make some noise to try to contact some mathematical chineese institution, that wanted to do the experiment in chill mode??

Quickly talking, very quickly talking What I have is two diffrent practical counterexamples of Cantor's Theorem Badly talking: based in concrete relationships Both "technics" show directly HOW the "quantity" of elements inside P(N) are not bigger that the quantity in N...

Are called TPI: Unlimited Transfer of Pairs (the letters are in spanish) and DI: Inverse Diagonalization Both are inmune to diagonalizations. TO ALL possible diagonalizations :D

Both have exactly the same "weak point", but with complementary needs Mathematicians usually aproves all points until we reach the "weak" point in each branch And like they UNDERSTAND that if the weak point is correct, the th is dead, they just DENY it

But denying it in one branch, means saying the weak point of the other branch is absolutely correct, and viceversa So denying it they GUARANTEE one of my two counterexamples is perfectly builded See the core question?

NOW, I will advance just a little data, in case you are still curious.. the first point of the presentation IT NEEDS A LOT OF CONTEXT; but I hope it will help you to understand the question better REMEMBER, it is the "weak point" :D

The rest of the points, are more than double checked, unofficially, by a lot of people (it is hard to talk about counterexamples of Cantor's Th with mathematicians). I used a lot of people, litttle by little, but each point has two or more people saying it is correct 2 refs

I can send send you the references(spanish), one is an interview in video, another one is a letter that needs "context": remember, people shortcircuit Both agree in saying I have new and interesting tools despite the fact I am not a mathematician and my tools are not "ortodox"

Let's try to explain with more datail which is the "weak" point Let's call S to a set with aleph_k cardinality K could be any possible natural number, even zero. We are going to "chop" S many times What is a "chop"?

Doing a chop in S, means extract from S a concrete list of elements, perfectly defined We are going to define chops, by the subset of S that survives into S after the chop, okey? S_i are the elements inside S, not extracted by the chop CHOP_i

Steps and properties we know absolute for sure: 1.- We are going to do EXACTTLY aleph_0 different chops...no matter the k of aleph_k, which will be the cardinality of S 1a) Each chop has a natural subindex. ALL are going to be defined at the same time, with a unique formula

2.- All chops are independent All can be executed in parallel All can be executed in an instant They can be executed disordered, the order is not important

3.- Like we are representing each chop witth the subset that survives inside S We will have aleph_0 "surviving" S_i subsets of S, if we study each chop independently These are their properties:

3a) They are like russian dolls They are "nested subsets" of S S_(i+1) C S_i The next one, in index, is strictly contained inside the previous one

This means each chop is better and better extracting members from S One is able top extract what ALL the previous ones extract.. but a "few" more elements NOT in quantity... exactly the same entities... and more...

3b) The difference between two consecutive, in index, chops, has the same cardinal than S Card ( S_i \ S_(i+1) ) = Card (S) None a singular Si has cardinal zero, in the infinite list But the "improvements", extracting, have the cadinal of S It continues... 👇

3c) THE MAGICAL DETAIL The infinite intersection of ALL S_i is the empty set REMEMBER: We are absolutely sure about all this previous properties Each S_i is smaller and smaller, none is empty, but the intersection of them all is the empty set AND HERE COMES THE WEAK POINT

Question If we apply ALL chops, at the same time ¿S ends empty or not? Try to think about this, many of you could think is has a simple answer, or not... but that is not the question.. think think... before read the next tuit :D

ANSWER IT DOES NOT MATTER In both cases, Cantor's Theorem is dead That Situation is what I call the "Shit-tuation" Both technics, use a special set (S) to indicate "injectivity" Different in each one, but ending under the same context explained before

TPI, to be a practical equivalent of injectivity, needs S to be totally empty (in reallity not, but you like stuff easy to decide) DI needs only ONE element surviving inside S, to be an equivalent of injectivity My only weak point, is not knowing the correct answer

I don't know if S ends empty or not AND BELIEVE ME... you can think mathematicians can give an asnwer to this... you need to see how they react once the answer is related to the Cantor's Theorem :D But in both posibilities, I have a different counterexample that uses it. See?

I am nobody I have two references saying "interesting tools" F..K !! See what they are able to do!!! I am not academic, I am not mathematician... don't ask me stuff you will an academic dude Overall protocols and inner culture Give 8 dudes and blackboards !!