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 19:28:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <23d24c5dee3a8cef4e989d6efc3bacd3a2d71032@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> <417ff6da-86ee-4b3a-b07a-9c6a8eb31368@att.net>
 <vllfof$2n0uj$2@dont-email.me> <07258ab9-eee1-4aae-902a-ba39247d5942@att.net>
 <vlmst2$2vjr0$3@dont-email.me>
 <ff1fe002014bf5951a98e2061cb63ad93976a808@i2pn2.org>
 <vlofv2$3akpn$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f6faf842a0202b345f3912fe352044dfabfc56d@i2pn2.org>
 <vlrhb0$2m5j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:28:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3018902"; 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: <vlrhb0$2m5j$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3408
Lines: 39

On 1/10/25 11:19 AM, WM wrote:
> On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/9/25 7:37 AM, WM wrote:
> 
>>> As I said, cardinality cannot describe this difference of one element.
> 
>> Because the property that "cardinality" describes doesn't have that 
>> difference.
> 
> So it is. Cardinality cannot describe the difference of one element, not 
> even of infinitely many. Infinite is simply infinite, no matter what the 
> real size is.

Cardinality CAN describe the difference of one element, if the sets are 
finite.

And Infinite isn't just Infinite, as there *ARE* graduations in it. The 
number of Real Numbers is bigger than the Number of Natural Numbers or 
Rational Numbers. Your logic just can't handle that fact, because it 
can't handle any infinite thing.

> 
> You need not understand that. But the claim that different sets like ℕ 
> and ℚ are of same size shows that you have been stultified by set theory.
> 

No, the fact that you refuse to beleive what is proven show that you are 
just too stupid to understand set theory.

And, the fact that you can't even formally define how your logic 
actually works, just shows how failed your idea of "logic" is.

You say that the classical set theory doesn't work, but your only 
argument is based on a "logic" that can show that 0 == 1, so is proven 
to be fundamentally flawed.

YOU are the one that is ignorant and out of touch.

> Regards, WM