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: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 19:05:44 -0500
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <vka9gq$rs83$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>   <b1d876ee-d815-4540-bc6f-fe7c27c146a3@att.net> <vjmgdm$i9be$1@dont-email.me> <abf7344d-b95b-4432-8626-8356dc1dd261@att.net> <vjn9ud$mlgt$2@dont-email.me> <4051acc5-d00a-40d2-8ef7-cf2b91ae75b6@att.net> <vjreik$1lokm$1@dont-email.me> <8d69d6cd-76bc-4dc1-894e-709d044e68a1@att.net> <vjst0u$1tqvv$3@dont-email.me> <7356267c-491b-45c2-b86a-d40c45dfa40c@att.net> <vjufr6$29khr$3@dont-email.me> <4bf8a77e-4b2a-471f-9075-0b063098153f@att.net> <vjv6uv$2dra0$1@dont-email.me> <31180d7e-1c2b-4e2b-b8d6-e3e62f05da43@att.net> <vk1brk$2srss$7@dont-email.me> <bb80c6c5-04c0-4e2d-bb21-ac51aab9e252@att.net> <vk23m7$31l8v$1@dont-email.me> <bce1b27d-170c-4385-8938-36805c983c49@att.net> <vk693m$f52$2@dont-email.me> <a17eb8b6-7d11-4c59-b98c-b4d5de8358ca@att.net> <vk7dmb$7mh2$2@dont-email.me> <b72490c1-e61a-4c23-a3a5-f624b2c084e4@att.net> <vk8tbq$j9h1$1@dont-email.me> <0393b227-fa2e-4649-a363-e53ab6e73327@att.net> <vka3i4$q8gm$1@dont-email.me>
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: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 01:05:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="208461b9dabad23330c845aae6cf1960";
	logging-data="913667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+EasMEo9EPA2dCS7DI9FSWRb20gx4+nGU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lqnd9XUmnx89jkTKrNp0xIm/irM=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 2872

WM brought next idea :
> On 22.12.2024 22:22, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 12/22/2024 6:32 AM, WM wrote:
>
>>> The function E(n) decreases
>>> from infinity to zero
>>> by single steps of height 1
>>> like the function NUF(x) increases
>>> by single steps of height 1. Set theorists must accept
>>> magic steps of infiniteᵂᴹ size or
>>> refuse to describe these transitions at all.
>> 
>> Alternatively,
>> set theorists could continue to talk about
>> what set theorists talk about, instead of
>> what you (WM) talk about.
>> 
> They do not wish to recognize that their theory is self-contradictory. But 
> perhaps students would be interested. I tell them the following story.
>
> The function E(n) decreases from infinity to zero because in set theory ℕ \ 
> {1, 2, 3, ...} =  { } is an accepted formula.

In what way is it decreasing?