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

On 12/2/24 9:52 AM, WM wrote:

On 01.12.2024 18:38, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/1/24 11:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 01.12.2024 13:14, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/1/24 5:55 AM, WM wrote:

>

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.

>
Which just shows that you are using naive mathematics that is just inconsistant.

>
Mathematics is consistent, set theory is not.

>
But Mathematics is based on set theory,

 Not at all. This is only claimed by set theorists. Mathematics is based upon potential infinity. Merely some symbols of finite set theory like ∈ ℕ ∪ ∩ ⊆ have turned out useful.
 Regards, WM
 

Which just shows you don't actually understand the formalization of mathematics, and thus are stuck in your broken naive mathematics that just can't handle the infinite.
Note, the *SET* of the Natural Numbers, is defined by the set of operation of SET THEORY.
Ignoring the definitions means you don't understand what numbers actually are.