Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)

On 18.01.2025 14:46, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/17/25 4:56 PM, WM wrote:

That "definition" violates to definition that set don't change.

>
So it is. But if infinity is potential, then we cannot change this in order to keep set theory, but then set theory is wrong.

 So, you are just agreeing that your logic is based on contradictory premsises and thus is itself contradictory and worthless.

No, set theory claims actual infinity but in fact useses potential infinity with its "bijections". They contain only natnumbers which have ℵ₀ successors. If all natural numbers were applied, there would not be successors:
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }.
Regards, WM