Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
 (extra-ordinary, effectively)
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:17:21 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <15f183ae29abb8c09c0915ee3c8355634636da31@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@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>
 <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$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:17:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="903703"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vkpa98$dofu$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3368
Lines: 38

On 12/28/24 11:50 AM, WM wrote:
> On 28.12.2024 15:12, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 12/27/2024 5:24 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2024 01:00 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The, "almost all", or, "almost everywhere",
>>> does _not_ equate to "all" or "everywhere",
>>
>> Correct.
>> ⎛ In mathematics, the term "almost all" means
>> ⎜ "all but a negligible quantity".
>> ⎜ More precisely, if X is a set,
>> ⎜ "almost all elements of X" means
>> ⎜ "all elements of X but those in
>> ⎜ a negligible subset of X".
>> ⎜ The meaning of "negligible" depends on
>> ⎜ the mathematical context; for instance,
> 
> A good example is the set of FISONs. Every FISON contains only a 
> negligible quantity of natural numbers. A generous estimation is: Every 
> FISON contains less than 1 % of all natural numbers. There is no FISON 
> that contains more than 1 %. Therefore the union of all FISONs contains 
> less than 1 % of all natural numbers. Outside of the union of FISONs are 
> almost all natural numbers.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 
> Regards, WM
> 

Just shows that you don't understand *AT ALL* about infinity.

Every Natural Number is less that almost all other natural numbers, so 
its %-tile of progress is effectively 0, but together they make up the 
whole infinite set.

The fact that you mind can't comprehend that just proves your stupidity.