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

On 12/22/24 5:11 PM, WM wrote:

On 22.12.2024 20:10, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/24 8:11 AM, WM wrote:

 

Find a natural number that is not in all intervals [1, n] which I use:
∀n ∈ ℕ [1, n].

>
But you can't use *ALL* intervals, becaue you need to use them individually

 No, I do as Cantor did.
 Regards, WM

No, you do what you THINK Cantor did, but you don't understand what he did, because you can't understand the infiite.
This shows by the fact that you find the need to alter what he does to something different that you do understand, that you think is the same, but isn't actually, because it is rooted in logic that only works for finite sets.
Sorry, if you think that you are doing EXACTLY as Cantor did, you are just an idiot.
If you think it is ok to be different by still say you are doing the same thing, you are just a stupid liar.