Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary, not.ultimately.untrue)

On 12/07/2024 12:27 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/7/2024 9:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/06/2024 08:34 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/6/2024 4:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/06/2024 10:51 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/5/2024 9:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>

No, I say "not.ultimately.untrue" is
_more_ than "not.first.false".

>
Here is how to tell:
>
I have here in my hand a list of claims,
each claim true.or.not.first.false,
considering each point between a split of ℚ
(what I consider ℝ)
>
It is, of course, a finite list, since
I am not a god.like being (trust me on this).
>
If anything here is not.ultimately.untrue
_what_ is not.ultimately.untrue?
The points?
The claims, trustworthily true of the points?

>
Clams?
Where are the clams at/from?

>
s/clams/claims
>
If you need to know where the claims are at/from
in order to answer my question,
that also answers my question:
Your use of
'not.ultimately.untrue' and 'yin-yang ad infinitum'
is utterly divorced from
my use of
'not.first.false'.

>

No, the "clams", where do you address that
the "clams", inductive clams, must both close
and open to be fit for the soup?

>
I suggest that you get your clams
wherever you can, wherever you choose.
>
The claims I refer to are true.or.not.first.false
and in finite.sequences.
>

Then, your "utterly divorced" implies a bad marriage.

>
My "utterly divorced" implies that
whatever you are talking about
has no bearing on whatever I am talking about.
>
That sounds like the makings of a bad marriage,
so, I suppose you're right about that.
>

<RF>

>
Yet, I think that I've always been
both forthcoming and forthright
in providing answers, and context, in
this loooong conversation [...]
>

</RF>
>
...For.Certain.Values.Of forthcoming and forthright.

>
>

Sounds like your food safety with regards to clams
makes that it's not just seafood allergies
why I wouldn't trust the dish.
For example, "yin-yang ad-infinitum".