Path: ...!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, effectively)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 12:01:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f4df6827c66d0e404e968c3f5386448e0375acac@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vkpa98$dofu$2@dont-email.me>
	<3d2fe306aa299bc78e94c14dadd21645d8db9829@i2pn2.org>
	<vkr8sq$t59a$2@dont-email.me>
	<d4669f26483b01c8a43dfd3ac4b61ab4a42bf551@i2pn2.org>
	<vksikk$17fjt$1@dont-email.me>
	<aa2941e93e806f1dda55d563dd062db67eb879f1@i2pn2.org>
	<vktmi3$1ia1u$1@dont-email.me>
	<c46775b30460bc564b3fe7bd1b838713829024f8@i2pn2.org>
	<vkv3t1$1qb93$1@dont-email.me>
	<2163aa0c0efba66c813e8ebda5ef5ece6d19ea34@i2pn2.org>
	<vl1bp4$2bcos$2@dont-email.me>
	<4d797c9134ea480aa4976cf866cacaede8d309bd@i2pn2.org>
	<vl5uid$3au1p$1@dont-email.me> <vl650i$3c2ia$1@dont-email.me>
	<vl6il4$3ecap$5@dont-email.me>
	<1e8ebc58a12fd659e38d0b9f0ff6fc0194f933be@i2pn2.org>
	<vl88v4$3qtjc$5@dont-email.me>
	<ecf6965f78c9152b3fff0d3b18d7df0247100acf@i2pn2.org>
	<vl9605$3vk27$5@dont-email.me>
	<9a25e92033e0a4d24e9c27df0de95d8b033d0862@i2pn2.org>
	<vlasro$cr0k$1@dont-email.me>
	<a676a0802d5bdf15dd22a1f8cd5072893b6e1e33@i2pn2.org>
	<vldn14$vlah$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 12:01:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2119836"; 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: 2874
Lines: 22

Am Sun, 05 Jan 2025 11:31:01 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 04.01.2025 11:59, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 04 Jan 2025 09:52:08 +0100 schrieb WM:
>>> On 04.01.2025 05:06, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/25 12:15 PM, WM wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Every union of FISONs which stay below a certain threshold stays
>>>>> below that threshold.
>>>> Every union of a finite number of FISONs is just an admssion that you
>>>> can't do the actual union of *ALL* FISONs.
>>> For all FISONs:|ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
>> But not for the union.
> What should make the union larger than all FISONs?
Whatever do you mean? The union is of course larger than every single
FISON, because there are infinitely many.

> Every union of FISONs which stay below a certain threshold stays belown
> that threshold.
The union of all of them doesn't stay below any threshold.

-- 
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.