Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:31:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5b085f20fd9f5ec67026fb86f41654bb79e4868c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>
	<d79e791d-d670-4a5a-bd26-fdf72bcde6bc@att.net>
	<vgj4lk$2ova9$3@dont-email.me>
	<f154138e-4482-4267-9332-151e2fd9f1ba@att.net> <vgkoi7$b5pp$1@solani.org>
	<6d9f3b10-47ad-459c-9536-098ce91f514b@att.net>
	<vgni02$3osmc$1@dont-email.me>
	<16028da0-456b-47ad-8baa-7982a7cbdf10@att.net> <vgpupb$abrr$2@dont-email.me>
	<fc4df00f-96d1-402f-89d2-739cb8ddd863@att.net> <vgsg04$t7fk$1@dont-email.me>
	<1fca3a53-1cb4-4fd2-85b6-85e9b69ca23b@att.net>
	<vgtpmo$153hf$6@dont-email.me>
	<d17f7542-986e-4897-89b4-dccaf11d5311@att.net>
	<vh00jj$1m6co$1@dont-email.me>
	<97304048-24f5-4625-82a7-d17427f2f6e3@att.net>
	<vh0hta$1pmql$1@dont-email.me>
	<65febd06-662b-4fa4-9aa8-f7353a79a110@att.net>
	<vh2k9p$29cql$1@dont-email.me>
	<157a949d-6c19-4693-8cee-9e067268ae45@att.net>
	<vh35nd$2d81g$1@dont-email.me>
	<cb0c9917-09a9-45f0-8fe9-cd059fa82dde@att.net>
	<vh4itg$2o3vu$1@dont-email.me>
	<8165b44b-1ba5-429d-8317-0b043b214b53@att.net>
	<vh76bi$3bnde$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:31:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2563854"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2507
Lines: 12

Am Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:04:33 +0100 schrieb WM:

> It can be proven for every finite geometric figure that covering it by
> small pieces or intervals does not depend on the individuality and
> therefore on the order of the pieces.
> That means if there is a configuration where the figure is not covered
> completely, every possible shuffling will also fail.
Duh. If some configuration doesn't cover it, shuffling the pieces changes
nothing. But there may be other configurations that do cover the figure.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.