Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:04:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vjp1fi$13ar5$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vg7vgh$csek$1@dont-email.me>
 <vg8911$dvd6$1@dont-email.me> <vjgvpc$3bb3f$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjh28r$3b6vi$4@dont-email.me> <vjjfmj$3tuuh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjjgds$3tvsg$2@dont-email.me>
 <539edbdf516d69a3f1207687b802be7a86bd3b48@i2pn2.org>
 <vjk97t$1tms$1@dont-email.me> <vjmc7h$hl7j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjmd6c$hn65$2@dont-email.me>
 <cdf0ae2d3923f3b700a619a16975564d95d38370@i2pn2.org>
 <vjnaml$n89f$1@dont-email.me>
 <75dbeab4f71dd695b4513627f185fcb27c2aaad1@i2pn2.org>
 <vjopub$11n0g$5@dont-email.me> <vjot7b$12rsa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 12:04:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8cb16b437f3efafb0eb1892e9ae812c7";
	logging-data="1157989"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wbQ+imXq3i7TGLN8hob34LQgnGZg76XM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bVZPW5TAlL4dZDBw6Q3ypPuN4GU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vjot7b$12rsa$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3133

On 16.12.2024 10:51, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-12-16 08:55:39 +0000, WM said:
> 
>> On 15.12.2024 22:14, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/15/24 2:29 PM, WM wrote:
>>
>>>> Next is a geometric property, in particular since the average 
>>>> distance of intervals is infinitely larger than their sizes.
>>
>>> Not sure where you get that the "average" distance of intervals is 
>>> infinitely larger than ther sizes.
>>
>> The accumulated size of all intervals is less than 3 over the infinite 
>> length.
> 
> True.
> 
>> Hence
> 
> False.
> 
>> there is at least one location with a ratio oo between distance to the 
>> interval and length of the interval.
> 
> False. Regardless which interval is "the" interval the distance to that
> interval is finite and the length of the interval is non-zero so the
> ratio is finite.

Well, it is finite but huge. Much larger than the interval and therefore 
the finite intervals are not dense.>
>>  Start there with the cursor. It will hit one next interval. Crash.
> 
> No, it does not. It does not touch an interval before passing another
> interval.

That is nonsense, because the distance, at least at one location, is 
much larger than the finite interval. That proves that, at that 
location, the intervals are not dense. That proves that not all 
rationals are included in intervals.

> An interval it touches after passing other intervals is not
> the next interval.

The multiple of a finite length (of an interval) does not suffer from 
intervals showing up from behind.

Regards, WM