Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:41:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d4ff81bae39debd39e6701fba0575b9a7c05c591@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vl5tds$39tut$1@dont-email.me>
 <9c18a839-9ab4-4778-84f2-481c77444254@att.net> <vl87n4$3qnct$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ef20494f573dc131234363177017bf9d6b647ee@i2pn2.org>
 <vl95ks$3vk27$2@dont-email.me> <vl9ldf$3796$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlaskd$cr0l$2@dont-email.me> <vlc68u$k8so$1@dont-email.me>
 <vldpj7$vlah$7@dont-email.me>
 <a8b010b748782966268688a38b58fe1a9b4cc087@i2pn2.org>
 <vlei6e$14nve$1@dont-email.me> <66868399-5c4b-4816-9a0c-369aaa824553@att.net>
 <vlir7p$24c51$1@dont-email.me> <417ff6da-86ee-4b3a-b07a-9c6a8eb31368@att.net>
 <vllfof$2n0uj$2@dont-email.me> <07258ab9-eee1-4aae-902a-ba39247d5942@att.net>
 <vlmst2$2vjr0$3@dont-email.me> <vlo6g6$3a9st$1@dont-email.me>
 <vloss8$3ecjr$2@dont-email.me> <vlpe3b$3hn08$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlpsc6$3kemp$1@dont-email.me> <vlpsii$3keea$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlpu46$3kemp$6@dont-email.me> <vlpu8r$3kemp$8@dont-email.me>
 <vlpv16$3kemo$2@dont-email.me> <vlq3p5$3p8qv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vlqrq6$3tulv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 12:41:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2933288"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vlqrq6$3tulv$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3382
Lines: 37

On 1/10/25 5:12 AM, WM wrote:
> On 10.01.2025 04:22, Moebius wrote:
> 
>> Again, referring to the sucessor operation s, we have
>>
>>             {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} = {s0, s1, s2, s3, ...} .
>>
>> If we NOW compare
>>
>>                     {s0, s1, s2, s3, ...}       (= {1, 2, 3, 4, ...})
>> with
>>                     { 0,  1,  2,  3, ...} ,
>>
>> does ist STILL make sense to claim "everybody can see that they are 
>> not equal in size"?
> 
> The set of natural numbers reaches from zero to omega exclusively: (0, 
> ω). The set {s0, s1, s2, s3, ...} can be mapped on the set {0,  1,  2, 
> 3, ...}. Then all pairs (sn, n) do exist. If however s0 is shifted, 
> i.e., mapped on 1, s1 on 2, and so on, then 0 has no longer a partner 
> and the last sn is mapped on ω.
> 
> Note: Actual infinity is brought about by the vast realm of dark numbers.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 
> 

Nop, Dark Numbers don't exist, but are a figment of your imagination 
cause by your need to try to invent numbers that don't exist in the set 
you are looking.

Your "logic" is based FUNDAMENTALLY on the LIE that you can imagine the 
"last" value of an actually infinte series, which BY DEFINITION doesn't 
have a last element.

This LIE causes your logic to blow itself up into smithereens, taking 
your reasoning power with it, by the contradictions created by your lies.