Path: ...!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.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 09:15:48 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <49768a11b9a61e2d633d64ac17065a90c714774a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$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>
 <1ebbc233d6bab7878b69cae3eda48c7bbfd07f88@i2pn2.org>
 <vlo5f4$39hil$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c89380adaad983f24d5d6a75842aaabbd1adced@i2pn2.org>
 <vloule$3eqsr$1@dont-email.me>
 <ffffed23878945243684de7f2aa9aaaf29564508@i2pn2.org>
 <vlrej9$2m5k$1@dont-email.me> <d6ed4797-65e8-4004-853c-f07a37af0c11@att.net>
 <vls4j6$7v2k$3@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 14:15:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3110509"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vls4j6$7v2k$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2581
Lines: 16

On 1/10/25 4:48 PM, WM wrote:
> On 10.01.2025 21:08, Jim Burns wrote:
> 
>> Where OUR infinityⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ "doesn't work",
>> it's you who's saying it doesn't work,
> 
> You are inconsistent. You claim that all natural numbers are an 
> invariable set. But when all elements are doubled then your set grows, 
> showing it is not inc´variable. That is nonsense.
> 
> Regards, WM

No, the set DOESN'T grow, and show that you lie by the fact you can't 
name ONE number in the new set that wasn't in the original.

Sorry, you are just you are just a stupid liar that is so stupid they 
can't see they are stupid. Dunnig-Kruger at its best.