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.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:05:25 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <abd1031a1be7fec415c1e8b43216d46c31493427@i2pn2.org>
References: <31419fde-62b3-46f3-89f6-a48f1fe82bc0@att.net>
 <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>
 <85e0893a25e83c8407149ef84012fdfa4c65aa05@i2pn2.org>
 <vichvo$13m17$2@dont-email.me>
 <c1f435672c4e9bbc6a357dcee2f15d6922d48f71@i2pn2.org>
 <vicu6f$16140$1@dont-email.me>
 <371cd0b72537c3d99645164428f3344138ebf0c1@i2pn2.org>
 <vid4k3$1777k$1@dont-email.me>
 <57d2cffb39a8ac1e10c5c1bda1beb0b99956946e@i2pn2.org>
 <vidcbc$18ddr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 22:05:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="524507"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vidcbc$18ddr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3385
Lines: 45

On 11/29/24 4:39 PM, WM wrote:
> On 29.11.2024 21:07, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/29/24 2:28 PM, WM wrote:
> 
>>> Analysis is no a lie.
>>
>> Bad Analysis, like what you do is.
> 
> The limit of the infinite sequence 1/9, 1/9, 1/9, ... is 1/9. Nothing is 
> clearer than that.
> 

Which doesn't actually mean anything.

The limit x-> 0 of 0^x is 0 (as it is for all x)

The limit x->0 of x^0 is 1 (as it is for all x)

But 0^0 isn't defined, even though both of the limits seem to apprach it.

You can only use the limit as the final result if it actually applies.

Since the Infinite set is actually the same kind as any of the finite 
sets in the sequence, the limit doesn't apply


>>> No, I am using a very simple and sound rule. If all hats of finite 
>>> intervals (0, n] fail to cover more than 1/10, then it is impossible 
>>> to cover more than 1/10 of the whole set ℕ because beyond all finite 
>>> intervals and all finite n, there is no supply of black hats.
>>
>> So, you admit to MAKING UP your rules based on your own ideas
> 
> This chain of arguing is irrefutable by consistent thinking.

No, it is based on inconsistent thinking that has blown up your logic to 
smithereens causing you to not know what it true.

You are just working off naive mathematics that was proving incorrect, 
and are stupidly sticking to it.

Sorry, but you are just proving your stupidity.

> 
> Regards, WM