Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary, effectively)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 12:23:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <vldq3p$vlag$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vkpa98$dofu$2@dont-email.me>
 <3d2fe306aa299bc78e94c14dadd21645d8db9829@i2pn2.org>
 <vkr8sq$t59a$2@dont-email.me>
 <d4669f26483b01c8a43dfd3ac4b61ab4a42bf551@i2pn2.org>
 <vksikk$17fjt$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa2941e93e806f1dda55d563dd062db67eb879f1@i2pn2.org>
 <vktmi3$1ia1u$1@dont-email.me>
 <c46775b30460bc564b3fe7bd1b838713829024f8@i2pn2.org>
 <vkv3t1$1qb93$1@dont-email.me>
 <2163aa0c0efba66c813e8ebda5ef5ece6d19ea34@i2pn2.org>
 <vl1bp4$2bcos$2@dont-email.me>
 <ac6061d7f9963a83c7a67f474fe9cb835c98cf5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vl5tvs$39tus$1@dont-email.me>
 <9387e323873e24f0a57b8daa49579d9a1c517563@i2pn2.org>
 <vl6i2u$3ecap$2@dont-email.me>
 <89598d353b5737d5cbfabd1cde31c797a212e13d@i2pn2.org>
 <vl7f50$3jdl8$2@dont-email.me> <vl7ftq$3jcou$2@dont-email.me>
 <vl88fp$3qtjc$2@dont-email.me>
 <7595ac4af886b0ab3c0f5fe6bcbcbce6103e78aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vl9lpu$3796$4@dont-email.me> <vlbufp$ifig$3@dont-email.me>
 <vldnrr$vlag$3@dont-email.me> <vldp8v$10dv7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 12:23:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cfe6170884cd9660d3ba2d6ea153e630";
	logging-data="1037648"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aIjcct7TqKCgObkrWwTEs6D8/FJyBTyE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O27YxTT3aMWQfMmbjK/R+SIrshU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vldp8v$10dv7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2840

On 05.01.2025 12:09, FromTheRafters wrote:
> WM wrote :
>> On 04.01.2025 19:26, Moebius wrote:

>> That is not an example but a silly claim contradicted by my theorem. 
>> My theorem is proved by the fact that nothing is in the union which 
>> could make it larger than all elements in the union.
>>>

>> Every union of FISONs which stay below a certain threshold stays below 
>> that threshold.
>>
>>> So the union of (the set of) _all_ FISONs does NOT "stay below" IN, 
>>> though each and every FISON does.
>>
>> Your matheologial belief is outside of mathematics and does not 
>> deserve further discussion.
> 
> Then STFU and go away.

It could be that not all set theorists are that stultified. Maybe I can 
save some of them from this counter logical belief.

Regards, WM