Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:16:48 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vju7eg$28f29$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vg7vgh$csek$1@dont-email.me> <vg8911$dvd6$1@dont-email.me> <vjgvpc$3bb3f$1@dont-email.me> <vjh28r$3b6vi$4@dont-email.me> <vjjfmj$3tuuh$1@dont-email.me> <vjjgds$3tvsg$2@dont-email.me> <539edbdf516d69a3f1207687b802be7a86bd3b48@i2pn2.org> <vjk97t$1tms$1@dont-email.me> <vjmc7h$hl7j$1@dont-email.me> <vjmd6c$hn65$2@dont-email.me> <cdf0ae2d3923f3b700a619a16975564d95d38370@i2pn2.org> <vjnaml$n89f$1@dont-email.me> <75dbeab4f71dd695b4513627f185fcb27c2aaad1@i2pn2.org> <vjopub$11n0g$5@dont-email.me> <vjot7b$12rsa$1@dont-email.me> <vjp1fi$13ar5$2@dont-email.me> <vjrt4r$1of0a$1@dont-email.me> <vjsjfg$1sgj9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 11:16:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f4f843b7341eefa420f3b902bc578863";
	logging-data="2374729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+H+fYnU8SFq9hR37hgcvIC"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:abu/j8ZjJbjPWipMbqF/Li5syAg=
Bytes: 2516

On 2024-12-17 19:29:52 +0000, WM said:

> On 17.12.2024 14:08, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-12-16 11:04:17 +0000, WM said:
>> 
>>>> False. Regardless which interval is "the" interval the distance to that
>>>> interval is finite and the length of the interval is non-zero so the
>>>> ratio is finite.
>>> 
>>> Well, it is finite but huge. Much larger than the interval and 
>>> therefore the finite intervals are not dense.
>> 
>> They are dense because there are other intervals between the point and the
>> interval.
> 
> The distance between intervals (in some location) is finite but much, 
> much larger than the finite length of the interval. This distance is 
> the distance between intervals which are next to each other. Therefore 
> there is nothing in between.

There is no next interval and therefore no distance to the next interval
as there are always othet intervals nearer.

You haven't prove your claim and can't prove so it is just an unujustified
opnion.

-- 
Mikko