Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:15:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <82cca81d299305d12334df1fe98f7b34d8bf482e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vjc65g$1i9vk$3@dont-email.me>
	<vjf7kl$2s7e5$1@dont-email.me> <vjfmq3$2upa9$3@dont-email.me>
	<c6b624cb0b1b55d54aab969ee5b4e283ec7be3cd@i2pn2.org>
	<vjhp8b$3gjbv$1@dont-email.me>
	<dc9e7638be92c4d158f238f8c042c8559cd46521@i2pn2.org>
	<vjjg6p$3tvsg$1@dont-email.me>
	<c31edc62508876748c8cf69f93ab80c0a7fd84ac@i2pn2.org>
	<vjka3b$1tms$3@dont-email.me>
	<e11a34c507a23732d83e3d0fcde7b609cdaf3ade@i2pn2.org>
	<vjmse3$k2go$2@dont-email.me>
	<069069bf23698c157ddfd9b62b9b2f632b484c40@i2pn2.org>
	<vjooeq$11n0g$2@dont-email.me>
	<c611fdd5710ea4e05d421327898dfd48277b66d6@i2pn2.org>
	<vjpbo0$15bha$2@dont-email.me>
	<7aa4daa380966c031798568433c3a7e079cd29cf@i2pn2.org>
	<vjplmh$177tn$2@dont-email.me>
	<e08128aa5aa13493ccc0f9a4e0473fdc1515cb24@i2pn2.org>
	<vjreth$1lvej$1@dont-email.me>
	<0ea781d0d3fe1c2cb4e900898f655d12de85a403@i2pn2.org>
	<vjsrm0$1tqvv$1@dont-email.me>
	<4830fbe90350c8c4e942352043d8d4511d4c15a4@i2pn2.org>
	<vjv6hn$2dujf$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:15:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3436598"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2533
Lines: 14

Am Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:07:35 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 18.12.2024 10:35, joes wrote:
>  > Am Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:49:51 +0100 schrieb WM:
>  >> On 17.12.2024 13:34, Richard Damon wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Your logic that if it holds for all FISONs, it holds for N,
>  >> Please explain what Cantor does to apply more than what I apply,
>  >> namely all n ∈ ℕ.
>  > He „applies“ the set of all N, as opposed to every single n.
> Please quote the text from which you have obtained that wrong idea.
Why is it wrong?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.