Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!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: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 08:49:21 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <vljbd5$27p7o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>   <vklumc$3htmt$1@dont-email.me> <c03cf79d-0572-4b19-ad92-a0d12df53db9@att.net> <vkp0fv$b7ki$2@dont-email.me> <b125beff-cb76-4e5a-b8b8-e4c57ff468e9@att.net> <vkr8j0$t59a$1@dont-email.me> <98519289-0542-40ce-886e-b50b401ef8cf@att.net> <vksicn$16oaq$7@dont-email.me> <8e95dfce-05e7-4d31-b8f0-43bede36dc9b@att.net> <vl1ckt$2b4hr$1@dont-email.me> <53d93728-3442-4198-be92-5c9abe8a0a72@att.net> <vl5tds$39tut$1@dont-email.me> <9c18a839-9ab4-4778-84f2-481c77444254@att.net> <vl87n4$3qnct$1@dont-email.me> <8ef20494f573dc131234363177017bf9d6b647ee@i2pn2.org> <vl95ks$3vk27$2@dont-email.me> <vl9ldf$3796$1@dont-email.me> <vlaskd$cr0l$2@dont-email.me> <vlc68u$k8so$1@dont-email.me> <vldpj7$vlah$7@dont-email.me> <a8b010b748782966268688a38b58fe1a9b4cc087@i2pn2.org> <vlei6e$14nve$1@dont-email.me> <66868399-5c4b-4816-9a0c-369aaa824553@att.net> <4iKdnULFG5CGGOH6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> <vliv5n$256n9$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: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 14:49:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df955ad94a3e4de7fcea6199322f49c9";
	logging-data="2352376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JVBnhJ0QqEq6HoEecdw+6y5c6OHnGAYQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/SrLVe0psqcb6ChgfOPOCKjbJUQ=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 2385

WM was thinking very hard :
> On 07.01.2025 02:36, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 01/06/2025 02:43 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
>
>>> It would be great if you (WM) did NOT
>>> find lemma 1 weird,
>>> but it is what it is.
>
> It is not weird. But your conclusions are weird.
>
>> The inductive set being covered by
>> initial segments is an _axiom_ of ZF.
>
> And the existence of the set ℕ is also an axiom of ZF.

Which axiom?