Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:32:45 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3352a7c00e3e768a4942926139d021a878a4643a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vier32$1madr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vierv5$1l1ot$2@dont-email.me> <viiqfd$2qq41$5@dont-email.me>
	<vijhrd$34mp8$1@dont-email.me> <vilh59$3k21l$5@dont-email.me>
	<vilheq$3ks01$3@dont-email.me> <vilhjk$3k21l$9@dont-email.me>
	<vilhk8$3ks01$4@dont-email.me> <vilhnl$3k21l$10@dont-email.me>
	<viljdo$3k21l$12@dont-email.me> <87frn50zjp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vinuvc$cdlu$1@dont-email.me> <vinvvu$c7p5$6@dont-email.me>
	<vio0u4$c7p5$8@dont-email.me> <vio8rj$ei97$5@dont-email.me>
	<vio9nu$f13q$1@dont-email.me> <vip1f1$npsr$2@dont-email.me>
	<vipaue$qd3r$1@dont-email.me> <87y10vzo35.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vipf6v$qr8p$2@dont-email.me> <87ser3zgez.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<viqca6$12cut$2@dont-email.me> <virpnj$1g4uq$1@dont-email.me>
	<52bcdc5dc54bbfb48a16c985885e5d527e483ceb@i2pn2.org>
	<visj63$1mmrh$3@dont-email.me>
	<607a1cfa738b9c9c09eab692c978cb6978e5d90b@i2pn2.org>
	<viuehn$27c49$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:32:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1528930"; 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: 2884
Lines: 23

Am Fri, 06 Dec 2024 10:01:43 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 06.12.2024 00:48, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/5/24 11:08 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 05.12.2024 13:26, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which ones can not be "taken" or "given".
>>> Those with less than infinitely many successors. Cantor claims that
>>> all numbers are in his bijections. No successors remaining.
>> Which since such numbers don't exist,
> If so, then infinity cannot be used completely.
Just because you can't picture infinity?

> "The infinite sequence thus defined has the peculiar property to contain
> the positive rational numbers completely, and each of them only once at
> a determined place." [G. Cantor, letter to R. Lipschitz (19 Nov 1883)]
> None is missing, let alone a natural number or infinitely many
> successors.
And each of them has infinitely many successors, for which the same goes,
and which are all included (together with their successors, which form
a subset).

-- 
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.