Path: ...!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 14:56:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e6bb91321bb6fbcc599196a0ce7b264d600401cf@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<bd7dfdc7-6471-4fe6-b078-0ca739031580@att.net>
	<vklumc$3htmt$1@dont-email.me>
	<c03cf79d-0572-4b19-ad92-a0d12df53db9@att.net>
	<n9CdnR02SsevtPL6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<45a632ed-26cc-4730-a8dd-1e504d6df549@att.net> <vkpa98$dofu$2@dont-email.me>
	<15f183ae29abb8c09c0915ee3c8355634636da31@i2pn2.org>
	<vkra77$tpqs$1@dont-email.me>
	<c952199b5513be28bb1f5c8b374a2d7a77470743@i2pn2.org>
	<vks2ae$13p6j$1@dont-email.me>
	<104bb752404701738187104c93bbfe5f8e62bacb@i2pn2.org>
	<vktmsj$1hmvv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 14:56:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1170789"; 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: 2832
Lines: 26

Am Mon, 30 Dec 2024 09:50:26 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 30.12.2024 01:39, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/29/24 12:53 PM, WM wrote:
>>> On 29.12.2024 13:34, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/24 6:01 AM, WM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All definable numbers (FISONs) stay below 1 %. Every union of "below
>>>>> 1 %" stays below 1 %.
>>>
>>>> Since 0 is Less than 1, you are sort of correct, but that fact
>>>> doesn't prove your claim.
>>>> The problem is that when you get to *ALL*
>>>
>>> I get to all FISONs below a certain threshold, namely a threshold
>>> between which and ω there exist ℵ₀ natnumbers.
So not all. All those thresholds (and the FISONs) are finite and do not
include all naturals.

>> Which isn't "All FISONs"
> Do you personally know FISONs larger than those? Please let me know
> them.
threshold +1

-- 
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.