Identify at least one fallacy and explain in detail why the fallacy leads to a contradiction. For these problems, Cantor's proof refers to the use of the table diagonalization technique to show that the real numbers bar uncountable, countability and (d)enumerability are equivalent, the notation R[0,1) represents the set of real numbers in the interval from 0 to exclusize of 1, and the magic num is a number produced by the diagonalization technique that contradicts the completeness of any assumed table of real numbers. 4. Cantor's proof assumes you can create some table of all the numbers in R[0,1) and use it to reach a contradiction. However, that's just some table, not all tables, and the fact that some table can't enumerate R[0,1) doesn't mean that all tables can't, because (3x)[P(x)'] doesn't necessarily imply (Ux)[P(x)1] in predicate logic. So, Cantor's proof is invalid Because it violates the rules of predicate logic. Identify at least one fallacy and explain in detail why the fallacy leads to a contradiction. For these problems, Cantor's proof refers to the use of the table diagonalization technique to show that the real numbers bar uncountable, countability and (d)enumerability are equivalent, the notation R[0,1) represents the set of real numbers in the interval from 0 to exclusize of 1, and the magic num is a number produced by the diagonalization technique that contradicts the completeness of any assumed table of real numbers. 4. Cantor's proof assumes you can create some table of all the numbers in R[0,1) and use it to reach a contradiction. However, that's just some table, not all tables, and the fact that some table can't enumerate R[0,1) doesn't mean that all tables can't, because (3x)[P(x)'] doesn't necessarily imply (Ux)[P(x)1] in predicate logic. So, Cantor's proof is invalid Because it violates the rules of predicate logic