Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:56:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <da99c67bd5f1d280212fbd29dec939f027876cbd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vier32$1madr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vierv5$1l1ot$2@dont-email.me> <viiqfd$2qq41$5@dont-email.me>
	<vijhrd$34mp8$1@dont-email.me> <vilh59$3k21l$5@dont-email.me>
	<vilheq$3ks01$3@dont-email.me> <vilhjk$3k21l$9@dont-email.me>
	<vilhk8$3ks01$4@dont-email.me> <vilhnl$3k21l$10@dont-email.me>
	<viljdo$3k21l$12@dont-email.me> <87frn50zjp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vinuvc$cdlu$1@dont-email.me> <vinvvu$c7p5$6@dont-email.me>
	<vio0u4$c7p5$8@dont-email.me> <vio8rj$ei97$5@dont-email.me>
	<vio9nu$f13q$1@dont-email.me> <vip1f1$npsr$2@dont-email.me>
	<vipaue$qd3r$1@dont-email.me> <87y10vzo35.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vipf6v$qr8p$2@dont-email.me> <87ser3zgez.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<viqca6$12cut$2@dont-email.me> <virpnj$1g4uq$1@dont-email.me>
	<ff5ee533dd180eb24978c76e7e00ba6f4676d51a@i2pn2.org>
	<vis3iq$1iu5p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:56:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1375095"; 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: 2637
Lines: 17

Am Thu, 05 Dec 2024 12:42:17 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 05.12.2024 11:53, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:54:11 +0100 schrieb WM:
>>> On 04.12.2024 20:59, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not sure why WM thinks that Cantor Pairing does not work with any
>>>> natural number... I think I am not misunderstanding WM here.
>>> Take any natnumber you can. Almost all natnumbers are following.
>>> Infinitely many of them cannot be "taken" or "given" and cannot be
>>> proven to be in any mapping. But Cantor claims that all without any
>>> exception can be taken.
>> Yes, of course they can? Why shouldn't they? What does it mean to you?
> But every number you can take belongs to a vanishing subset of ℕ.
What does that have to do with the ability to be "chosen"?

-- 
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.