Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 07:41:36 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <02e95cccef7a3cd03bbc32806ed278d4f05a6e26@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vllm44$2oeeq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlm2fv$2qk9u$2@dont-email.me> <59af1502-0bc9-4266-b556-6164edb6a8d4@att.net>
 <vlmscv$2vgqf$1@dont-email.me>
 <9a22a29bfd5af29db5bad5f3cae537665b8dafd7@i2pn2.org>
 <vlochd$3akpm$2@dont-email.me>
 <a0aff8d9ca313d39093282bca3d2d2505092e153@i2pn2.org>
 <vlouqv$3eqsr$2@dont-email.me>
 <3918860dac06c85fd300953fa7ba2cd35c084460@i2pn2.org>
 <vlph0m$3i1ro$3@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 12:41:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2933288"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vlph0m$3i1ro$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2608
Lines: 19

On 1/9/25 5:01 PM, WM wrote:
> On 09.01.2025 21:24, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:51:43 +0100 schrieb WM:
> 
>> all ordinals have an order,
>> but omega still has no predecessor
> 
> You don't know it. That does not prove its non-existence.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 

It has no predecessor, just like 0 has no predecessor, as it is DEFINED 
as the beginning of a sequence of things with successors.

Only by moving to a HIGHER order mathematics that expands on the 
principles, can you get to other numbers.

Since your logic claims that infinite numbers don't exist, you do get to 
go past them, as you are just blowing your brain up with its contradictions.