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

On 12/2/2024 10:23 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/02/2024 05:22 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

[...]

>
You mean like "do you pick?".
>
Remember "do you pick?".

I vaguely remember sometime when that question appeared.

See, in mathematics, all of which are mathematical
objects, in one theory called mathematics, there's
the anti-diagonal argument, which here used to be
called the diagonal argument which is the wrong name,
has after an only-diagonal argument, what results
that you either get both or none, though that the
only-diagonal itself is constructive for itself
while the anti-diagonal is a non-constructive argument
when you look at it that way.
>
So, "do you pick?".
>
I think us long-term readers can generously,
generously, aver the "Burse's memories", are,
at best, regularly erased.
>
Many of which elicited a spark of thought
then out-went-the-lights. Most of which
went starkers bat-shit.
>
So, do you even remember?
Or did you just get told again?

If a prerequisite of being told is
knowing what one has been told,
then you didn't tell me then
and you haven't told me just now.
So, the answer is neither.
I sincerely hope that my own posts aren't as opaque.
I can only pledge to explain 'not.first.false' and its ilk
to the best of my ability, upon request.
Ross, if you are concerned about hurting my feelings
by making your explanations too obvious,
please dismiss your concerns.
Please make your explanations of what you mean
as obvious as you can.
I am tough.
I can take the embarrassment of
having something _clearly_ explained to me.