Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!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: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:07:58 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vlv860$sa4k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vlir7p$24c51$1@dont-email.me> <417ff6da-86ee-4b3a-b07a-9c6a8eb31368@att.net>
 <vllfof$2n0uj$2@dont-email.me> <07258ab9-eee1-4aae-902a-ba39247d5942@att.net>
 <vlmst2$2vjr0$3@dont-email.me>
 <1ebbc233d6bab7878b69cae3eda48c7bbfd07f88@i2pn2.org>
 <vlo5f4$39hil$2@dont-email.me>
 <4c89380adaad983f24d5d6a75842aaabbd1adced@i2pn2.org>
 <vloule$3eqsr$1@dont-email.me>
 <ffffed23878945243684de7f2aa9aaaf29564508@i2pn2.org>
 <vlrej9$2m5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <8a2ab98a731ae8bf62f098c3a958876d687f97cb@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 03:08:01 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5328dbe39382283b57a1e72b814449ac";
	logging-data="927892"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mFcPZHVsVSVNx9p62/9nPy5stPk9H8ik="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jDeMIwukIxM22UeZhFUucbB9CA8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8a2ab98a731ae8bf62f098c3a958876d687f97cb@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3873

On 1/10/2025 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/10/25 10:32 AM, WM wrote:
>> On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/9/25 11:48 AM, WM wrote:
>>
>>>> It is true that {1, 2, 3, ...} is a set and {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is a 
>>>> greater set.
>>
>>> No, one may be the proper subset of the other, but it turns out that 
>>> due to the way that infinity works, they are both are the same size.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with "how infinity works". It simply is a 
>> result of an insufficient method to measure infinite sets.
>>
>> Regards, WM
> 
> No, it DOES have a baring on how infinity "works", but that seems to be 
> beyond your comprehesion due to your stupidity.
> 
> Removing a finite part from and infinite thing does not make that 
> infinite thing "smaller", becausse the "finite" thing is not measurable 
> AT ALL compared to the infinite, as it is an infintesimal part of it.
> 
> Your logic is based on the concept that infihity isn't actually 
> infinite, just "inconceivably" huge, but that means the finite thing 
> *IS* a measurable part of the whole, just an inconceivably small portion.
> 
> IT is YOUR method that is insufficient to handle that actual nature of 
> infinity, because it is bigger than your system can handle.
> 
> The two sets do not have a measurable difference, because they have the 
> same number of elements. as can be shown with the proper pairing between 
> them. *YOU* only *THINK* they are different, because your logic can't do 
> that pairing, becuase for your logic, it take an infinite about of work, 
> and it can't do that.
> 
> Sorry, your logic is just blowing your brain up into smithereens by its 
> inconsistancies, resulting in your darkness out of that super nova of 
> error.

WM is a teacher! Holy MOLY!