Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.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
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:24:18 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vh3n0m$2gbt6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>   <vghuoc$2j3sg$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> <vh3eso$2f2gh$1@dont-email.me> <790e797d-e670-4562-86b9-eb3ef492a4ea@att.net>
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 03:24:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="904cd1b02cfbac08914b6c1a25a6dff9";
	logging-data="2633638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I2TJxahCzCPKKVZpKc4P3uI8KmUlrlw0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HfOSddppQIhM5odYODrt902Xneg=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 4281

Jim Burns pretended :
> On 11/13/2024 7:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Jim Burns formulated on Wednesday :
>>> On 11/13/2024 4:29 PM, WM wrote:
>>>> On 13.11.2024 20:38, Jim Burns wrote:
>
>>>>> ----
>>>>>>  Bob.
>>>>>
>>>>> KING BOB!
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjAg-8qqR3g
>>>>>
>>>>> If,
>>>>>   in a set A which
>>>>>   can match one of its proper subsets B,
>>>>
>>>> That is nonsense too.
>
> [repaired]
>
> A finite sequence of claims in which
> each claim is true.or.not.first.false
> is
> a finite sequence of claims in which
> each claim is true.
>
> Some claims are true and we know it
> because
> they claim that
> when we say this, we mean that,
> and we, conscious of our own minds, know that
> when we say this, we mean that.
>
> Some claims are not.first.false and we know it
> because
> we can see that
> no assignment of truth.values exists
> in which they are first.false.
> q is not first.false in ⟨ p p⇒q q ⟩.
>
> Some finite sequences of claims are
> each true.or.not.first.false
> and we know it.
>
> When we know that,
> we know each claim is true.
>
> We know each claim is true, even if
> it is a claim physically impossible to check,
> like it would be physically impossible
> to check each one of infinitely.many.
>
> We know because
> it's not checking the individuals
> by which we know.
> It's a certain sequence of claims existing
> by which we know.
>
>> In my source window:
>
> [...]
>>> That is nonsense too.
>>
>> A finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in 
>> which
>> each claim is true.or.not.first.false
>> is
>> a finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in 
>> which
>> each claim is true.
> [...]
>
>> ================================================
>> I follow some of this mostly from context. :)
>
> Sorry about that.
> The other fonts weren't strictly necessary,
> I just had a brainstorm over
> how to (maybe) explain logical validity better,
> and I couldn't resist.

No harm, I just thought you might like to see how it looks on my 
viewing pane.