Path: ...!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: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 09:15:53 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <85bde7c38573e6f8e39ae7327410fb32b8138fdf@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> <412770ca-7386-403f-b7c2-61f671d8a667@att.net>
 <vllg47$2n0uj$3@dont-email.me> <vllm44$2oeeq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlm2fv$2qk9u$2@dont-email.me> <59af1502-0bc9-4266-b556-6164edb6a8d4@att.net>
 <vlmscv$2vgqf$1@dont-email.me>
 <9a22a29bfd5af29db5bad5f3cae537665b8dafd7@i2pn2.org>
 <vlochd$3akpm$2@dont-email.me> <vlofbp$3c074$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlohk3$3cap7$1@dont-email.me> <vlosfs$3eekp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlov8s$3eqeg$2@dont-email.me>
 <c0ccc357ed34ebe8d5a08b68743b855d28b79158@i2pn2.org>
 <vlrllb$5m14$1@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 14:15:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3110509"; 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: <vlrllb$5m14$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4315
Lines: 60

On 1/10/25 12:33 PM, WM wrote:
> On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> "Nubmers" or "Sets" don't evolve.
> 
> Fine. Then the set of natural numbers is completed. Multiply all natural 
> numbers by 2. The set of even numbers then doubles. The domain below ω 
> is unable to absorb new numbers. What happens to the newly created even 
> numbers?
> 
>> You seem to THINK that sets, particularly "potentially infinite" set 
>> "evolve" in that numbers get added to them as you move along the 
>> generator, but the set doesn't change, only our knowledge of the set.
> 
> The multiplication above concerns the set, not only the numbers we know.

So? We can know any of the eleements of the set, and none got added, as 
we can see that the result of multiplying any element of the set will 
result in another value that was always a member of the set.

>>
>>>
>>>> they are the smallest infinite set.
>>>
>>> The set of prime numbers is infinite but smaller because it is a 
>>> proper subset. It has less than 1 % content.
>>
>> It may SEEM smaller, but it turns out it is of the same countable 
>> infinite cardinality.
> 
> It turns out that countable cardinality is not able to distinguish the 
> sets of natural numbers and of even numbers. But mathematics. Every set 
> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., n} contains roughly twice the even numbers. This 
> holds for all n. More are not available. Hence it holds for the infinite 
> set.

It can't "distinguish" there size, as there isn't an actual difference 
is size, since there *IS* a one-to-one mapping between the two, which is 
the DEFINITION of "same size".

It can distinguish the sets, The sets are different but the same size. 
You are just tripping up by the INCORRECT assumption of your naive 
mathematics that a proper subset needs to have less members then its 
super set. That property only applies to FINITE sets, not infinitie 
sets. When you start from error, you get error.

Note, in your examples, you use finite sets, but then try to generalize 
to the infinite set, but fail, because you logic doesn't work for that set.

> 
> Any questions about mathematics?

I wouldn't ask you, because you clearly don't know how mathematics works.

Msybe if I had a question about your naive mathematics, but who cares 
about broken systems.

> 
> Regards, WM
>