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.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:57:30 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <85e0893a25e83c8407149ef84012fdfa4c65aa05@i2pn2.org>
References: <31419fde-62b3-46f3-89f6-a48f1fe82bc0@att.net>
 <vi1dbj$2moon$1@dont-email.me> <vi224l$2pgrd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi4383$3csd4$2@dont-email.me> <vi4a6c$3dt4s$2@dont-email.me>
 <c5a03e73203e6409f6b50c25b84a22d8df0d210b@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:57:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="471193"; 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: <d0d39b61-0943-48ba-9971-9c43eebfc1b5@tha.de>
Bytes: 3314
Lines: 35

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.

>>
>> The problem is that the actual problem is defined on the INFINITE set, 
>> and in that case, there ARE enough hats to cover.
> 
> No. The limit of the sequence f(n) of relative coverings in (0, n] is 
> 1/10, not 1. Therefore the relative covering 1 would contradict analysis.

And 0^x is 0, and x^0 is 1, which shows that just because you have a 
constant sequence, it limit is not necessarily the final value.

Your logic is just faulty becuase it makes the INCORRECT assumption that 
infinite sets just act like finite set, but are just "bigger".

That error is what has exploded your mind to the point you can't see 
that you mind has been exploded.

You are not just potentially stupid, you have acheived actual stupidity.

> 
> Regards, WM