Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:47:14 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a5a5887b77552dbb43fe894b1dfcc5da4c2bf4e9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vlei6e$14nve$1@dont-email.me>
 <66868399-5c4b-4816-9a0c-369aaa824553@att.net> <vlir7p$24c51$1@dont-email.me>
 <417ff6da-86ee-4b3a-b07a-9c6a8eb31368@att.net> <vllfof$2n0uj$2@dont-email.me>
 <07258ab9-eee1-4aae-902a-ba39247d5942@att.net> <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$3@dont-email.me>
 <adef9ec5c327614374fdc3c3cc55d7a753e28a36@i2pn2.org>
 <vltfo8$heoh$5@dont-email.me>
 <7fc40cc2dbd42016a62aa0374d545e9e787a7da3@i2pn2.org>
 <vltmu3$heoh$10@dont-email.me>
 <759693443d3b74e09b1560c4f73a22e4c7acebb5@i2pn2.org>
 <vm078o$13s92$1@dont-email.me>
 <163d655c1e04b1d48927690bf0847510cce611b3@i2pn2.org>
 <vm31nf$1pmu8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 23:47:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3483892"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vm31nf$1pmu8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3884
Lines: 56

On 1/13/25 7:42 AM, WM wrote:
> On 13.01.2025 03:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/12/25 5:58 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 11.01.2025 14:34, joes wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., ω becomes 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ..., ω, ω+2, 
>>>>> ω+4, ..., ω2.
>>>> No. There is no x e N such that 2*x >= omega. You have listed two
>>>> consecutive infinities on the right.
>>>
>>> There is a basic law: When a sequence of regular distances is 
>>> multiplied by 2, then a sequence of regular distances results.
>>
>> Which isn't applicable, since their isn't such a "regular distance" 
> 
> Between all natural numbers, there is a regular distance. When doubled, 
> the new ones do not fit between the old ones and ω because nothing fits 
> between ℕ and ω.

But omega isn't a natural number, so the space between the ... and omega 
isn't the same as the space between two consecutive natural numbers.

And the distance between the ... and omega *IS* big enough to fit the 
doubling of all the numbers (without needing to make any new ones).

> 
>> your starting premise is just
> 
> to double all numbers which fit between 1 and ω.

Which are still just the even numbers between 1 and omega.

> 
>>> The interval (0, ω)*2 becomes (0, ω*2) with ω in the middle. Below ω 
>>> the newly created even numbers cannot be inserted, because more than 
>>> all even natural numbers do not exist in actual infinity.
>>>
>>> Every contrary opinion is based on potential infinity.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, your "opinion" is just based on your
> 
> correct understanding that all between 1 and ω is available for doubling 
> and nothing can be inserted.

And nothing NEEDS to be inserted.

You still are stuck on the fact that no new natural number needed to be 
created, because we started with an unbounded set of them, so there was 
always more.

That is a concept your "naive finite logic" just can't handle.

> 
> Regards, WM
>