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

On 01.12.2024 11:17, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-27 11:10:51 +0000, WM said:
 

On 27.11.2024 10:33, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-26 11:07:57 +0000, WM said:
>

On 26.11.2024 10:09, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-25 14:38:13 +0000, WM said:

>

The simple example contradicts a bijection between the two sets described above.

>
What does "contradicts a bijection" mean?
>

It shows that the mapping claimed to be a bijection is not a bijection.

>
If so, no bijection is contradicted.

>
The possibility of a bijection between the sets  ℕ = {1, 2, 3, ...} and D = {10n | n ∈ ℕ} is contradicted.

 No, it is not. You merely deny it, disregarding obvious facts.

Obvious is that for every interval (0, n] the relative covering is 1/10, and that there are no further black hats beyond all natnumbers n.

The function
f(x) = 10 * f obviously maps every element of ℕ to a different element of
D and there is no element of D that is not 10 * f for some f so this f is
a bijection between ℕ and D.

It appears so. I have shown by a different example that it is wrong. The relative covering for every interval is 1/10, independent of the configuration of the hats available inside. The limit of this sequence is 1/10.
Regards, WM