Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Moebius <invalid@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:02:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <vio9nu$f13q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>
 <71758f338eb239b7419418f49dfd8177c59d778b@i2pn2.org>
 <via83s$jk72$2@dont-email.me> <viag8h$lvep$1@dont-email.me>
 <viaj9q$l91n$1@dont-email.me> <vibvfo$10t7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vic6m9$11mrq$4@dont-email.me> <vicbp2$1316h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vid4ts$1777k$2@dont-email.me> <vidcv3$18pdu$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdbc0e3d-1db2-4d6a-9f71-368d36d96b40@tha.de> <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$5@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 02:02:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f54805dd0852139be813890d7a58bd55";
	logging-data="492666"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19m6F5jdM7Vnngdd+kR11gN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7yIkAVglhzkRAajP/jna+0gmVKk=
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vio8rj$ei97$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2513

Am 04.12.2024 um 01:47 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 12/3/2024 2:32 PM, Moebius wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2024 um 23:16 schrieb Moebius:
>>> Am 03.12.2024 um 22:59 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>
>>>> However, there is no largest natural number, when I think of that I 
>>>> see no limit to the naturals. 
>>
>> Right. No "coventional" limit. Actually,
>>
>>       "lim_(n->oo) n"
>>
>> does not exist.
> 
> In the sense of as n tends to infinity there is no limit that can be 
> reached as in a so-called largest natural number type of shit? Fair enough?

Exactly.

We say, n is "growing beyond all bounds". :-P