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
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:50:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <vk406s$3g84i$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> <vjosno$12p56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjp0lf$13ar5$1@dont-email.me> <vjrtdm$1ogn3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjsjl4$1sk3l$1@dont-email.me> <vju7rp$28h2b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjubd8$294ii$1@dont-email.me> <vk0t9g$2qp57$1@dont-email.me>
 <vk1f5v$2srst$3@dont-email.me>
 <9c5b577e71162d62b2fbc7dc7a2f150ccd64be96@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:50:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4714c2ad223c14e6576c99477efd2520";
	logging-data="3678354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CbLa4mD4JG91S7+PEvZrhpiZtxizqVVM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HZxNSaInsZN1roHrd7Dpk6XO7Ps=
In-Reply-To: <9c5b577e71162d62b2fbc7dc7a2f150ccd64be96@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2638

On 20.12.2024 03:52, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/19/24 10:47 AM, WM wrote:
>> On 19.12.2024 11:41, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. What is acceptable for applied mathematics depends on the
>>> application area, which you didn't specify.
>>
>> It was obvious when the argument was discussed: The cursor moves from 
>> 0 to 1 on the real axis. For every unit fractions 1/n which it hits 
>> there are smaller unit fractions which it had not hit before because 
>> they were dark at the first time and came into being only later.

> No, it means you missed them because you moved too far, because you 
> closed your eyes.

The cursor moves until it hits a unit fraction.

> This shows that you can't move to the "first" (smallest valued) 1/n 
> because no such number actually exist,

But as soon the cursor has met a unit fraction, many smaller ones show 
up. They had nor "actually" existed as visible unit fractions.

Regards, WM