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

On 16.12.2024 11:14, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-12-15 11:25:26 +0000, WM said:

Here we have a limit of 1/10 from analysis and a limit of 0 from set theory. That shows that if set theory is right, we have
1/10 = 0 ==> 1 = 0 ==> 2 = 1.

 That is the fallacy of equivocation. The limit of analysis is a different
concept from the limit of set theory.

The limit of analysis proves that the limit of set theory is wrong. The limit of analysis proves that the relative covering is 1/10, the relative non-covering is 9/10. Set theory proves that the relative non-covering is 0. These numbers are answering exactly the same question.
Regards, WM