Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED.71.161.203.123!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 08:40:09 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <visafv$1kq6a$1@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> <viqca6$12cut$2@dont-email.me> <virpnj$1g4uq$1@dont-email.me> <ff5ee533dd180eb24978c76e7e00ba6f4676d51a@i2pn2.org> <vis3iq$1iu5p$1@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: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:40:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="71.161.203.123";
	logging-data="1730762"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376

WM used his keyboard to write :
> On 05.12.2024 11:53, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:54:11 +0100 schrieb WM:
>>> On 04.12.2024 20:59, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure why WM thinks that Cantor Pairing does not work with any
>>>> natural number... I think I am not misunderstanding WM here.
>>> Take any natnumber you can. Almost all natnumbers are following.
>>> Infinitely many of them cannot be "taken" or "given" and cannot be
>>> proven to be in any mapping. But Cantor claims that all without any
>>> exception can be taken.
>> Yes, of course they can? Why shouldn't they? What does it mean to you?
>> 
> All means all with no exception. But every number you can take belongs to a 
> vanishing subset of ℕ.

What do you mean by vanishing?