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

On 1/5/25 12:23 PM, WM wrote:

On 05.01.2025 13:47, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/5/25 5:37 AM, WM wrote:

On 04.01.2025 14:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/4/25 3:42 AM, WM wrote:

>

On 1/3/2025 2:48 PM, WM wrote:

On 03.01.2025 19:46, Jim Burns wrote:

>
All finite.ordinals removed from
the set of each and only finite.ordinals
leaves the empty set.

>
But removing every ordinal that you can define (and all its predecessors) from ℕ leaves almost all ordinals in ℕ.∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
>

And what keep you from "defining" the rest of the Natural Numbers.

>
Try it yourself. Then you will see it.

>
But I CAN define any of the Natual Numbers, the whole infinite set of them.

 No. Every defined number is far from the complete set.
 Regards, WM

The is no number in the infinite set that can not be defined, the fact that YOU can't understand that definition just shows your stupidity, and is proof of Dunning-Kruger.
Try to show a number that is in the set but not defined.