Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<8671079a0207b0f016ab1455868167011f3e65be@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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 Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 22:12:18 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8671079a0207b0f016ab1455868167011f3e65be@i2pn2.org> References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <0e67005f-120e-4b3b-a4d2-ec4bbc1c5662@att.net> <vga5mb$st52$1@dont-email.me> <vga7qi$talf$1@dont-email.me> <03b90d6c-fff1-411d-9dec-1c5cc7058480@tha.de> <380a63a4ba5e4206504c27b06c9f2a4b6bf3c02d@i2pn2.org> <vgaua6$11df5$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:12:18 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="999400"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vgaua6$11df5$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2262 Lines: 35 On 11/4/24 11:55 AM, WM wrote: > On 04.11.2024 13:28, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 11/4/24 5:47 AM, WM wrote: > >>> I said the nearest one. There is no interval nearer than the nearest >>> one. >> >> Unless "nearest" isn't a thing because things are dense. > > The intervals cannot be dense because they have a length of less than 3 > in an infinite space. The rationals are dense. This proves that they are > not countable.>> Not at all. You just don't understand how infinity works. Cantor showed how to count the Rationals in a countable infinity. He showed that the Reals Could not be counted, not even a finite length line of them. >>>> Therefore the >>>> point has no nearest interval. >>> >>> That is an unfounded assertions and therefore not accepted. >> >> No, it is a PROVEN statement, therefor true. > > It is proven in an inconsistent theory. I describe the true mathematics. No, you describe an inconsisten mathematics, which has blown up in your face and blineded you to the reality of the infinite numbers. > > Regards, WM >