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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s math 
Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.math
Date : 16. Dec 2024, 12:55:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <c611fdd5710ea4e05d421327898dfd48277b66d6@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 16 Dec 2024 09:30:18 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 15.12.2024 21:21, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 15 Dec 2024 16:25:55 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 15.12.2024 12:15, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:00:43 +0100 schrieb WM:
>
That pairs the elements of D with the elements of ℕ. Alas, it
can be proved that for every interval [1, n] the deficit of hats
amounts to at least 90 %. And beyond all n, there are no further
hats.
But we aren't dealing with intervals of [1, n] but of the full
set.
Those who try to forbid the detailed analysis are dishonest
swindlers and tricksters and not worth to participate in
scientific discussion.
No, we are not forbiding "detailed" analysis
Then deal with all infinitely many intervals [1, n].
??? The bijection is not finite.
Therefore we use all [1, n].
Those are all finite.
All n are finite.
Contrary to the bijection.

The problem is that you can't GET to "beyond all n" in the
pairing,
as there are always more n to get to.
If this is impossible, then also Cantor cannot use all n.
Why can't he? The problem is in the space of the full set, not the
finite sub sets.
The intervals [1, n] cover the full set.
Only in the limit.
With and without limit.
Wonrg. There is no natural n that „covers N”.
All intervals do it because there is no n outside of all intervals [1,
n]. My proof applies all intervals.
It does not. It applies to every single finite „interval” (whyever those
matter), but not to the whole N.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
15 Dec 24 * Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)46joes
15 Dec 24 `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)45WM
15 Dec21:21  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)44joes
16 Dec09:30   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)43WM
16 Dec12:55    +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)13joes
16 Dec14:59    i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)12WM
16 Dec16:40    i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)11joes
16 Dec17:49    i  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)10WM
16 Dec18:25    i   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)9joes
17 Dec10:05    i    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)8WM
17 Dec13:34    i     `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)7Richard Damon
17 Dec22:49    i      `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)6WM
18 Dec10:35    i       +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)4joes
18 Dec20:07    i       i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)3WM
18 Dec21:15    i       i `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2joes
19 Dec15:36    i       i  `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1WM
18 Dec13:23    i       `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1Richard Damon
17 Dec00:52    `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)29Richard Damon
17 Dec05:32     +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1Chris M. Thomasson
17 Dec10:13     `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)27WM
17 Dec11:07      +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)3FromTheRafters
17 Dec11:37      i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2WM
17 Dec18:04      i `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1joes
17 Dec13:34      +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)3Richard Damon
17 Dec22:51      i`* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2WM
18 Dec13:25      i `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1Richard Damon
17 Dec18:07      `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)20joes
17 Dec22:57       `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)19WM
18 Dec13:29        `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)18Richard Damon
18 Dec20:06         `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)17WM
18 Dec21:15          +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2joes
19 Dec15:38          i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1WM
19 Dec04:29          `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)14Richard Damon
19 Dec15:58           `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)13WM
19 Dec22:25            +- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1Chris M. Thomasson
20 Dec03:52            `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)11Richard Damon
20 Dec11:13             `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)10WM
20 Dec12:55              `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)9Chris M. Thomasson
20 Dec15:38               `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)8WM
20 Dec21:18                `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)7Chris M. Thomasson
21 Dec04:37                 `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)6Richard Damon
21 Dec10:23                  +* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2Chris M. Thomasson
21 Dec10:36                  i`- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1Moebius
21 Dec18:46                  `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)3WM
22 Dec13:28                   `* Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)2Richard Damon
22 Dec14:11                    `- Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)1WM

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal