7. 8 Points) Alice and Bob. Alice found a proof that no numbering of all binary strings is possible, that includes all strings; that is, there is no surjective function N + {0,1}* Here is her argument: Consider any infinite sequence so, 81, 82,... of binary strings. 1. Claim: some binary string is not in the sequence. 2. Proof of the claim: 3. Define a new string t by in position i, t has a 1 if si has a 0, and t has a 0 if s; has a 1. 4. Thus for each i EN, position i guarantees that t si 5. Therefore t is not a string of the sequence. O Bob claims that there is an error in Alice's argument. Is he right? If yes, what is the flaw? If no, why did Bob claim that Alice's proof is flawed? 7. 8 Points) Alice and Bob. Alice found a proof that no numbering of all binary strings is possible, that includes all strings; that is, there is no surjective function N + {0,1}* Here is her argument: Consider any infinite sequence so, 81, 82,... of binary strings. 1. Claim: some binary string is not in the sequence. 2. Proof of the claim: 3. Define a new string t by in position i, t has a 1 if si has a 0, and t has a 0 if s; has a 1. 4. Thus for each i EN, position i guarantees that t si 5. Therefore t is not a string of the sequence. O Bob claims that there is an error in Alice's argument. Is he right? If yes, what is the flaw? If no, why did Bob claim that Alice's proof is flawed