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

On 11/18/2024 11:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/18/2024 05:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/18/2024 04:56 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/18/2024 12:59 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/18/2024 07:46 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

I plan to turn to your argument
once we have finished with
⎛ A FINITE SEQUENCE OF CLAIMS, each claim of which
⎜ is true.or.not.first.false  is
⎜ a FINITE SEQUENCE OF CLAIMS, each claim of which
⎝ is true.
>
What do you have to say about that, Ross?

>
I already did you keep clipping it.

>

Why don't you look back about the last three posts
and see an example where an inductive argument FAILS
and is nowhere finitely "not.first.false",
that it yet FAILS.

So, it's a counterexample,
and illustrates why what's not.first.false must
also be not.ultimately.untrue to not FAIL.

Then about Russell's retro-thesis and

>
First things first.
Are there non.well.ordered finite sequences, Ross?

>
Giving an ordinal assignment as "being", cardinals,
results then there are those among CH and not CH,
that would result contradictory models,
and not even necessarily considering Cohen's forcing,
and that he takes an ordinal out of a well-ordering,
since you asked for example of out-of-order ordinals.
>
Giving an assignment of reals

Much shorter Ross Finlayson: "Yes"
If you call me a liar for that summary,
then it's "No" and I'll try again
to explain the usefulness (NOT necessity)
of not.first.false CLAIMS in
finite.thus.well.ordered sequences.
Of course I won't address your response.
You're insisting on speaking a language
which sounds misleadingly like mine,
misleadingly like, for example, Cohen's, too.