Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:41:44 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <01a357460b0ccd6f5b9acf8d90cbbdce235628c2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <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> <412770ca-7386-403f-b7c2-61f671d8a667@att.net>
 <vllg47$2n0uj$3@dont-email.me> <b51a409b-8bf3-4cdb-9093-c6ed7c16eb15@att.net>
 <vlm27g$2qk9u$1@dont-email.me>
 <15db3fd56d5bb6e7fc30da0a4ad6931994820110@i2pn2.org>
 <vlo57i$39hil$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1d65948d81eefc01354d560c707c570906084f8@i2pn2.org>
 <vlpisr$3i1rp$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:41:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2933288"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vlpisr$3i1rp$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2856
Lines: 26

On 1/9/25 5:34 PM, WM wrote:
> On 09.01.2025 22:15, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 09 Jan 2025 10:34:42 +0100 schrieb WM:
> 
>> There is an infinite sequence of
>> infinite segments.
> 
> You cannot cut the set of natural numbers at any position to get two 
> infinite sets. Infinite sequence means no content. Infinite content 
> (content at all) means no infinite sequence.
> 
> REgards, WM
> 
> 
> 

Sure you can, you just need a special knife, like one that separates the 
odds from the evens.

If you mean you can not choose a finite number and have an infinite set 
of all numbers less than that, you are correct, and the fact that your 
logic implies that you think you should be able to do that, just show 
how badly your "logic" has blown itself up to smithereens on its 
inconsistancy.

You just don't unde=rstand what infinity means, and are too stupid to 
see your stupidity.