Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:59:03 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <viqca6$12cut$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vier32$1madr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vierv5$1l1ot$2@dont-email.me> <viiqfd$2qq41$5@dont-email.me>
 <vijhrd$34mp8$1@dont-email.me> <vilh59$3k21l$5@dont-email.me>
 <vilheq$3ks01$3@dont-email.me> <vilhjk$3k21l$9@dont-email.me>
 <vilhk8$3ks01$4@dont-email.me> <vilhnl$3k21l$10@dont-email.me>
 <viljdo$3k21l$12@dont-email.me> <87frn50zjp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vinuvc$cdlu$1@dont-email.me> <vinvvu$c7p5$6@dont-email.me>
 <vio0u4$c7p5$8@dont-email.me> <vio8rj$ei97$5@dont-email.me>
 <vio9nu$f13q$1@dont-email.me> <vip1f1$npsr$2@dont-email.me>
 <vipaue$qd3r$1@dont-email.me> <87y10vzo35.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vipf6v$qr8p$2@dont-email.me> <87ser3zgez.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 20:59:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="18f532fff7cb0dbc37a1aea16bf9bfbd";
	logging-data="1127389"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WMTU0ArQzaaX5XvgC/ZTs52iTT6VDXHs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tgIl9sBV/YnmJvX4uWLOsyqyY5A=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <87ser3zgez.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 5111

On 12/4/2024 6:11 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Am 04.12.2024 um 12:26 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>>> FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Moebius expressed precisely :
>>>>> Am 04.12.2024 um 02:02 schrieb Moebius:
>>>>>> Am 04.12.2024 um 01:47 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 2:32 PM, Moebius wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 03.12.2024 um 23:16 schrieb Moebius:
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.12.2024 um 22:59 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, there is no largest natural number, when I think of that I
>>>>>>>>>> see no limit to the naturals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. No "coventional" limit. Actually,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         "lim_(n->oo) n"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the sense of as n tends to infinity there is no limit that can be
>>>>>>> reached [...]?
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>> We say, n is "growing beyond all bounds". :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, if we focus on the fact that the natural numbers are
>>>>> sets _in the context of set theory_, namely
>>>>>
>>>>>          0 = {}, 1 = {{}}, 2 = {{}, {{}}}, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> =>      0 = {}, 1 = {0}, 2 = {0, 1}, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> (due to von Neumann)
>>>>>
>>>>> then we may conisider the "set-theoretic limit" of the sequence
>>>>>
>>>>>         (0, 1, 2, ...) = ({}, {0}, {0, 1}, ...).
>>>>>
>>>>> This way we get:
>>>>>
>>>>>         LIM_(n->oo) n = {0, 1, 2, ...} = IN. :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to mention that "lim_(n->oo) n" is "old math" (oldies but
>>>>> goldies) while "LIM_(n->oo) n" is "new math" (only possible after the
>>>>> invention of set theory (->Cantor) and later developments (->axiomatic
>>>>> set theory, natural numbers due to von Neumann, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> If you say so, but I haven't seen this written anywhere.
>>
>> @FromTheAfter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set-theoretic_limit
>>
>>> It's usually framed in terms of least upper bounds, so that might be why
>>> you are not recalling it.
>>> Ironically, there is a very common example of a "set theoretic limit"
>>> which is the point-wise limit of a sequence of functions.  Since
>>> functions are just sets of pairs, these long-known limits are just the
>>> limits of sequences of sets.  It's ironic because WM categorically
>>> denies that /any/ non-constant sequence of sets has a limit, yet the
>>> basic mathematics textbook he wrote includes the definition of the
>>> point-wise limit, as well as stating that functions are just sets of
>>> pairs.  He includes examples of something he categorically denies!
>>
>> Same with the notions of /bijections/. Explained in his book but denied by
>> WM these days.
> 
> Ah, I had not seen him deny the notion of a bijection.  Do you have a
> message ID?  I used to collect explicit statements, though I don't post
> enough to make it really worth while anymore.
> 

I think he has said that Cantor Pairing does not work with "certain" 
natural numbers? I guess, the dark ones? Afaict, Cantor Pairing works 
with any natural number and can generate a _unique_ pair of natural 
numbers. The pair can also be mapped back into the single natural that 
created it to begin with. Nothing is lost. The pairing works fine.

Not sure why WM thinks that Cantor Pairing does not work with any 
natural number... I think I am not misunderstanding WM here.