Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers

On 11/13/2024 7:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Jim Burns formulated on Wednesday :

On 11/13/2024 4:29 PM, WM wrote:

On 13.11.2024 20:38, Jim Burns wrote:

----

 Bob.

>
KING BOB!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjAg-8qqR3g
>
If,
  in a set A which
  can match one of its proper subsets B,

>
That is nonsense too.

[repaired]
A finite sequence of claims in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite sequence of claims in which
each claim is true.
Some claims are true and we know it
because
they claim that
when we say this, we mean that,
and we, conscious of our own minds, know that
when we say this, we mean that.
Some claims are not.first.false and we know it
because
we can see that
no assignment of truth.values exists
in which they are first.false.
q is not first.false in ⟨ p p⇒q q ⟩.
Some finite sequences of claims are
each true.or.not.first.false
and we know it.
When we know that,
we know each claim is true.
We know each claim is true, even if
it is a claim physically impossible to check,
like it would be physically impossible
to check each one of infinitely.many.
We know because
it's not checking the individuals
by which we know.
It's a certain sequence of claims existing
by which we know.

In my source window:

[...]

That is nonsense too.

>
A finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in which
each claim is true.

[...]

================================================
I follow some of this mostly from context. :)

Sorry about that.
The other fonts weren't strictly necessary,
I just had a brainstorm over
how to (maybe) explain logical validity better,
and I couldn't resist.