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

Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 15:52:16 +0100 schrieb WM:

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.

Lol. Mathematics is axiomatised as ZFC, no mention of „potential”.