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 19:28:39 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6061c8beb5b940fb6427c2b1c4c94e45e708d57c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$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> <412770ca-7386-403f-b7c2-61f671d8a667@att.net>
 <vllg47$2n0uj$3@dont-email.me> <b51a409b-8bf3-4cdb-9093-c6ed7c16eb15@att.net>
 <vlm27g$2qk9u$1@dont-email.me>
 <15db3fd56d5bb6e7fc30da0a4ad6931994820110@i2pn2.org>
 <vlo57i$39hil$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1d65948d81eefc01354d560c707c570906084f8@i2pn2.org>
 <vlpisr$3i1rp$4@dont-email.me>
 <01a357460b0ccd6f5b9acf8d90cbbdce235628c2@i2pn2.org>
 <vlrlts$5m14$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 00:28:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3018902"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vlrlts$5m14$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2968
Lines: 26

On 1/10/25 12:38 PM, WM wrote:
> On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/9/25 5:34 PM, WM wrote:
>>> On 09.01.2025 22:15, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 09 Jan 2025 10:34:42 +0100 schrieb WM:
>>>
>>>> There is an infinite sequence of
>>>> infinite segments.
>>>
>>> You cannot cut the set of natural numbers at any position to get two 
>>> infinite sets. Infinite sequence means no content. Infinite content 
>>> (content at all) means no infinite sequence.
> 
>> Sure you can, you just need a special knife, like one that separates 
>> the odds from the evens.
> 
> Here we talk about endsegments and the natural order.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 

And things that you just don't understand. The fact that you can take an 
infinite set and cut out a finite set (any finite set) and be left with 
an infinite set that is just a big as before seems to be something that 
has just blown your mind to smithereens due to the inconsistencies of 
your logic. You are just so ignorant, that you are ignorant of your 
ignorance.