Path: ...!news.misty.com!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)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 18:03:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a8b010b748782966268688a38b58fe1a9b4cc087@i2pn2.org>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <vk693m$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$1@dont-email.me>
	<c03cf79d-0572-4b19-ad92-a0d12df53db9@att.net> <vkp0fv$b7ki$2@dont-email.me>
	<b125beff-cb76-4e5a-b8b8-e4c57ff468e9@att.net> <vkr8j0$t59a$1@dont-email.me>
	<98519289-0542-40ce-886e-b50b401ef8cf@att.net>
	<vksicn$16oaq$7@dont-email.me>
	<8e95dfce-05e7-4d31-b8f0-43bede36dc9b@att.net>
	<vl1ckt$2b4hr$1@dont-email.me>
	<53d93728-3442-4198-be92-5c9abe8a0a72@att.net>
	<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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 18:03:03 -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: 2536
Lines: 13

Am Sun, 05 Jan 2025 12:14:47 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 04.01.2025 21:38, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> 
>> For me, there are infinitely many natural numbers, period... Do you
>> totally disagree?
> No. There are actually infinitely many natural numbers. All can be
> removed from ℕ, but only collectively ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }.
> It is impossible to remove the numbers individually ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1,
> 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
Well yes, the size of N is itself not a natural number. Big surprise.

-- 
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.