Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 10:03:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <viekcs$1kd9m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <31419fde-62b3-46f3-89f6-a48f1fe82bc0@att.net>
 <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>
 <abd1031a1be7fec415c1e8b43216d46c31493427@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 10:03:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebfce87fb265da80d3fa3af64923c092";
	logging-data="1717558"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+u11y+WHPQB1zRmU0b1HIpncynmC0L27c="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mH2PrJbz9iDBUwcI9MLRY6c8kLc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <abd1031a1be7fec415c1e8b43216d46c31493427@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3418

On 29.11.2024 23:05, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

1/9, 1/9, 1/9, ... has the unique limit 1/9.
> 
> 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

It does.
> 
Further>>>> 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 is yours.

Regards, WM