Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:56:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <371cd0b72537c3d99645164428f3344138ebf0c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <31419fde-62b3-46f3-89f6-a48f1fe82bc0@att.net>
 <vi4k5a$3fj1t$1@dont-email.me>
 <8b860c66587b6d5d18e565caddb42cc3d5bb813c@i2pn2.org>
 <vi4vg4$3hg8t$3@dont-email.me> <vi509b$3hqcp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi56el$3is82$1@dont-email.me> <vi57p2$3j62u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi6tu2$3v0dn$3@dont-email.me>
 <bedba0f79694c3adbbcb4eff22a28b9597ea1293@i2pn2.org>
 <vi7uam$5cmb$1@dont-email.me>
 <376546bee4809e20528e0e9481315611ec5c3848@i2pn2.org>
 <vi9n75$hepc$1@dont-email.me>
 <659cb7a16573c854e96c7a982fe8b15397fb1210@i2pn2.org>
 <vi9u2d$ig6a$1@dont-email.me>
 <566c43c9af9113a8654a25c54ff6d60fbe982784@i2pn2.org>
 <via4jv$jk72$1@dont-email.me>
 <b7f357ab699a666d92da2a36021d0c8948232b1f@i2pn2.org>
 <viaaga$jk72$5@dont-email.me>
 <621b95c8deb04df2cb53e3bfa9f3a60e4b84458c@i2pn2.org>
 <d0d39b61-0943-48ba-9971-9c43eebfc1b5@tha.de>
 <85e0893a25e83c8407149ef84012fdfa4c65aa05@i2pn2.org>
 <vichvo$13m17$2@dont-email.me>
 <c1f435672c4e9bbc6a357dcee2f15d6922d48f71@i2pn2.org>
 <vicu6f$16140$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:56:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="504508"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vicu6f$16140$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3885
Lines: 51

On 11/29/24 12:38 PM, WM wrote:
> On 29.11.2024 16:16, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/29/24 9:10 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 29.11.2024 14:57, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/24 8:44 AM, WM wrote:
>>>>> On 29.11.2024 01:06, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/28/24 12:50 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>>>> If for all intervals 1, 2, 3, ..., n the covering is 1/10, then 
>>>>>>> there are no natnumbers outside of all intervals and there are no 
>>>>>>> hats
>>>>>>> outside of all intervals.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are making the error of assuming that the infinite set is just 
>>>>>> like a finite set that has part of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Analysis concerns infinite sequences and sets.
>>>>
>>>> You are looking at FINITE sets, and then trying to extrapolate to an 
>>>> infinte set, which doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Analysis shows the way. If it differs from set theory, then one of 
>>> both is wrong.
>>>
>> But set theory doesn't say anything that you are saying.
> 
> Set theory says that the sets ℕ = {1, 2, 3, ...} and D = {10n | n ∈ ℕ} 
> can be bijected by clever mapping. That means there are as many n as 10n 
> as black hats. That means by clever shifting the black hats they will 
> cover all n.

Yep, that's what it says, and it is true.

Note, NOTHING in that statement talks about working with finite subset 
of those sets, which is where you fall off the rails.

So, you are just shown to be using the logic of lies.

>>
>> Nothing in set theory talks about the equivalence of properties of the 
>> infinite set to the properties of the finite sets
> 
> That is the field of analysis. I believe that application of analysis 
> provides correct results for the infinite.

Apparently your concept of it doesn't, because you are using broken 
rules, maybe because you don't actually understand how to do analysis.

Sorry, starting from lies just gets you more lies.

> 
> Regards, WM