Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:50:07 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <vgtu6h$16i4q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <0e67005f-120e-4b3b-a4d2-ec4bbc1c5662@att.net> <vgab11$st52$3@dont-email.me> <ecffc7c0-05a2-42df-bf4c-8ae3c2f809d6@att.net> <vgb0ep$11df5$4@dont-email.me> <35794ceb-825a-45df-a55b-0a879cfe80ae@att.net> <vgfgpo$22pcv$1@dont-email.me> <40ac3ed2-5648-48c0-ac8f-61bdfd1c1e20@att.net> <vgg57o$25ovs$2@dont-email.me> <71fea361-0069-4a98-89a4-6de2eef62c5e@att.net> <vggh9v$27rg8$3@dont-email.me> <ff2c4d7c-33b4-4aad-a6b2-88799097b86b@att.net> <vghuoc$2j3sg$1@dont-email.me> <d79e791d-d670-4a5a-bd26-fdf72bcde6bc@att.net> <vgj4lk$2ova9$3@dont-email.me> <f154138e-4482-4267-9332-151e2fd9f1ba@att.net> <vgkoi7$b5pp$1@solani.org> <6d9f3b10-47ad-459c-9536-098ce91f514b@att.net> <vgni02$3osmc$1@dont-email.me> <16028da0-456b-47ad-8baa-7982a7cbdf10@att.net> <vgpupb$abrr$2@dont-email.me> <fc4df00f-96d1-402f-89d2-739cb8ddd863@att.net> <vgsg04$t7fk$1@dont-email.me> <1fca3a53-1cb4-4fd2-85b6-85e9b69ca23b@att.net> <vgtpmo$153hf$6@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:50:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="75e37a134612bcae0bc67db09a677e6e";
	logging-data="1263770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/G7CYv3fwQ+HcMkS5885+bCeoygfeVZ9s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:490ijSAvp28QOX2o+I9A1PjeNfU=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 2811

It happens that WM formulated :
> On 11.11.2024 19:23, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 11/11/2024 3:41 AM, WM wrote:
>
>>>>> But it will never complete
>>>>> an infinite set of claims.
>>>>
>>>> We do not need an infinite ???????? of ?????? completed.
>>>> We do not want an infinite ???????? of ?????? completed.
>>>
>>> But you claim that
>>> _all_ fractions are in bijection with
>>> all natural numbers,
>>> don't you?
>> 
>> Yes, I claim that.
>
> For that claim you need an infinite set of claims.

Good thing we have such.

>> This is one ?????:
>> ⎛ All fractions are in bijection with
>> ⎝ all natural numbers.
>
> It is wrong.

You 'think' it is wrong because you intuitively think it 'should' be 
wrong. Saying it is wrong does not make it wrong no matter how many 
times that you say it.

[...]