Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.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: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:47:47 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vio8rj$ei97$5@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$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 01:47:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="18f532fff7cb0dbc37a1aea16bf9bfbd";
	logging-data="477479"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eq2qQgtiNfYk1XWHnQ6eMm5lpsApB7Go="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sbCHmM3WQF8PQs0zfAwl9/M964Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vio0u4$c7p5$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2720

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?


> 
>> I must be missing something here? ;^o
> 
> Yaeh. "Set-theoretical limit" and "coventional limit" (as defined in 
> real analysis) are different notions.
> 
> Maybe it would be helful to write "LIM_(n->oo) ..." (instead of "lim_(n- 
>  >oo) ...") for the former ...
> 
> .
> .
> .
>