Path: news.eternal-september.org!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, effectively)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 19:26:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vlbufp$ifig$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>
 <n9CdnR02SsevtPL6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <45a632ed-26cc-4730-a8dd-1e504d6df549@att.net> <vkpa98$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>
 <ac6061d7f9963a83c7a67f474fe9cb835c98cf5b@i2pn2.org>
 <vl5tvs$39tus$1@dont-email.me>
 <9387e323873e24f0a57b8daa49579d9a1c517563@i2pn2.org>
 <vl6i2u$3ecap$2@dont-email.me>
 <89598d353b5737d5cbfabd1cde31c797a212e13d@i2pn2.org>
 <vl7f50$3jdl8$2@dont-email.me> <vl7ftq$3jcou$2@dont-email.me>
 <vl88fp$3qtjc$2@dont-email.me>
 <7595ac4af886b0ab3c0f5fe6bcbcbce6103e78aa@i2pn2.org>
 <vl9lpu$3796$4@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 19:26:01 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a8499f5dd11b0a7bb8fcf7459401dea";
	logging-data="605776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bxcBCdaN5iGi690uCLC0U"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/gjh9YatATo06/qJGqqjVJMr2pA=
In-Reply-To: <vl9lpu$3796$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: de-DE

Am 03.01.2025 um 22:45 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 1/3/2025 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/3/25 3:52 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 03.01.2025 02:52, Moebius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope. For each and every FISON F: F c_proper IN.
>>>>
>>>> But UNION(Set_of_FISONs) = IN.
>>>
>>> Every union of FISONs including them all which stay below a certain threshold stays below that threshold. 
>>>
>>> Regards, WM

I just mentioned a counterexample to your claim, you stupid idiot!

Hint:

| For each and every FISON F: F c_proper IN. But UNION(Set_of_FISONs) = IN.

So the union of (the set of) _all_ FISONs does NOT "stay below" IN, 
though each and every FISON does.

<facepalm>

>> Which is different from *ALL* of them, which your logic can't do, and 
>> thus shows you are just a stupid idiot that just doesn't understand 
>> the infinite.
> 
> Yet he teaches? wow.

Maybe the patients in a psychiatric ward.

..
..
..