Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 09:00:10 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vljc1e$27tbp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>   <c03cf79d-0572-4b19-ad92-a0d12df53db9@att.net> <vkp0fv$b7ki$2@dont-email.me> <b125beff-cb76-4e5a-b8b8-e4c57ff468e9@att.net> <vkr8j0$t59a$1@dont-email.me> <98519289-0542-40ce-886e-b50b401ef8cf@att.net> <vksicn$16oaq$7@dont-email.me> <8e95dfce-05e7-4d31-b8f0-43bede36dc9b@att.net> <vl1ckt$2b4hr$1@dont-email.me> <53d93728-3442-4198-be92-5c9abe8a0a72@att.net> <vl5tds$39tut$1@dont-email.me> <9c18a839-9ab4-4778-84f2-481c77444254@att.net> <vl87n4$3qnct$1@dont-email.me> <8ef20494f573dc131234363177017bf9d6b647ee@i2pn2.org> <vl95ks$3vk27$2@dont-email.me> <vl9ldf$3796$1@dont-email.me> <vlaskd$cr0l$2@dont-email.me> <vlc68u$k8so$1@dont-email.me> <vldpj7$vlah$7@dont-email.me> <a8b010b748782966268688a38b58fe1a9b4cc087@i2pn2.org> <vlei6e$14nve$1@dont-email.me> <66868399-5c4b-4816-9a0c-369aaa824553@att.net> <vlir7p$24c51$1@dont-email.me> <vlisr9$251u5$1@dont-email.me> <vliv7a$256n9$2@dont-email.me> <fa55e8836f3aa6428490ed0275da915dc8a725e7@i2pn2.org>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 15:00:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df955ad94a3e4de7fcea6199322f49c9";
	logging-data="2356601"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TQSdFcbPDulbPSTLhmT/3NeysOSgYETw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xaX2E90OglPiOwmaBFvRkfH81AU=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 3048

Richard Damon formulated on Tuesday :
> On 1/7/25 5:21 AM, WM wrote:
>> On 07.01.2025 10:40, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> WM has brought this to us :
>>>> On 06.01.2025 23:43, Jim Burns wrote:
>> 
>>>>> k ∈ ℕ  ⇒  k+1 ∈ ℕ
>>>>> is true for both the darkᵂᴹ and the visibleᵂᴹ.
>>>>
>>>> One exception exists: ω-1.
>>>
>>> Which remains undefined.
>> 
>> Like all dark numbers.
>> 
>> Regards, WM
>> 
>
> So, you admit that you can't even define what a dark number is.

He 'defines' them as undefined or even undefinable. How he determines 
set inclusion or exclusion is by delusion.

> THe problem is that it seems your "Dark numbers" are really just numbers that 
> don't exist, they are just the boggy men of your naive math "thoery" to 
> handle the fact that you think certain number must exist (like the highest 
> natural number) so you create this non-existant set of numbers to hide the 
> numbers that you think must exist but don't.
>
> They are just LIES.

Yes, unless he actually believes what he spews.