Path: ...!news.misty.com!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, 17 Jan 2025 09:52:27 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4d9beefb805973e8198d93c655f94b5c1a698794@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <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> <494bfd3b-3c70-4d8d-9c70-ce917c15fc22@att.net>
 <vm0okb$16cq0$2@dont-email.me> <bff18686-503a-4b7b-9406-b47796f68b47@att.net>
 <vm15pj$18v7t$1@dont-email.me> <72142d82-0d71-460a-a1be-cadadf78c048@att.net>
 <vm3hrs$1s9ld$2@dont-email.me> <812e64b1-c85c-48ac-a58c-e8955bc02f8c@att.net>
 <vm59g4$2b5ib$1@dont-email.me> <22b74adc-bf38-4aa4-a44f-622f0a2a5c41@att.net>
 <vm8u36$31v8s$5@dont-email.me> <ee759598-9b38-4a6b-8d63-6ddefa979759@att.net>
 <vmb1hf$3gu91$1@dont-email.me>
 <4890bdeb5b8345b224f3c7245b9cb8ac10a78fd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vmdc5q$3vamp$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:52:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4033094"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vmdc5q$3vamp$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3058
Lines: 28

On 1/17/25 5:42 AM, WM wrote:
> On 17.01.2025 01:37, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> The fact that you think more can be created, just means you never 
>> understood how to have all of them in the first place.
> 
> Only if we have all of them and can double all of them then by 2n > n 
> greater numbers than all of them are created.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 

Your problem is your logic doesn't work for a case where "All" is an 
infinite set.

Your logic has the error that it thinks the infinite set has a highest 
value, and thus is based on LIES.

You INCORRRECTLY ASSUME that the doubling of all of the infinite set 
must create new numbers, but we can show that the set of Natural Numbers 
includes the double of every Natural Number.

This, of course, just shows the danger of using "naive" logic, but you 
have shown yourself to stupid to understand that.

The operations allowed in your logic can't create the Natural Numbers, 
and blow themselves up to smithereens by the contradictions of trying to 
process the Natural Numbers, so you can't actually show anything about 
them. That you try, just shows your utter stupidity.