There is a new (August 2025) article at RG.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395032004_Wittgenstein_on_Cantor's_Proof

At page 19 Bangu and Schatz argued this way:

`… if one wants to avoid proving Cantor’s Theorem: it is believed that

one would have to give up, amongst other important results, the axiom of completeness,

the intermediate value theorem, and a wide variety of claims about algebraic

and topological objects.´

What has CD to do with that?

What is RG for, if the participants ignore the work of others?

Cantor slash2 got ruled out by me years ago.

• A result (a limit) of a routine for a calculation doesn't base automatically on that specific type of number which got used by the routine.

• Every combination or sequence of rationals is limited as to be a rational too.

• Doing limits for √2, π, e and so on by rationals, only come closer and closer to the irrational value, but the limit never will get an irrational.

• Cantor argued by `m´ and `w´. So binary. All Cantor did at CD is by limited array. Cantor failed by `2^ n-lines´ when he limited the array he examines on n lines when the depth of a line is by n elements.