Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

On 26.11.2024 15:50, Richard Damon wrote:
 

It defines the set but not its individual elements.

 
Sure it does. What number exists that it can not define?

 
It cannot define numbers of the second half of ℕ.
 
Regards, WM
 
 
 

What numbers are there that it can’t define, and what defined that they
exist in N?

Your problem is you just don’t know what N is, and how it is defined.

The successor function *IS* the definition of each of the members of N, and
thus defines ALL its members, the fact that you try to use the failed Naive
set theory concept to define your sets, which just prove your failed logic.