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

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.

>
A finite ???????? of ?????? in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite ???????? of ?????? 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 ?????? are not.first.false and we know it
because
we can see that
no assignment of truth.values exists
in which ???? are first.false.
? is not first.false in ⟨ ? ?⇒? ? ⟩.
>
Some finite ????????? of ?????? 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:
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:16:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <cb0c9917-09a9-45f0-8fe9-cd059fa82dde@att.net>
References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me>
 <71fea361-0069-4a98-89a4-6de2eef62c5e@att.net> <vggh9v$27rg8$3@dont-email.me>
 <ff2c4d7c-33b4-4aad-a6b2-88799097b86b@att.net> <vghuoc$2j3sg$1@dont-email.me>
 <d79e791d-d670-4a5a-bd26-fdf72bcde6bc@att.net> <vgj4lk$2ova9$3@dont-email.me>
 <f154138e-4482-4267-9332-151e2fd9f1ba@att.net> <vgkoi7$b5pp$1@solani.org>
 <6d9f3b10-47ad-459c-9536-098ce91f514b@att.net> <vgni02$3osmc$1@dont-email.me>
 <16028da0-456b-47ad-8baa-7982a7cbdf10@att.net> <vgpupb$abrr$2@dont-email.me>
 <fc4df00f-96d1-402f-89d2-739cb8ddd863@att.net> <vgsg04$t7fk$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fca3a53-1cb4-4fd2-85b6-85e9b69ca23b@att.net> <vgtpmo$153hf$6@dont-email.me>
 <d17f7542-986e-4897-89b4-dccaf11d5311@att.net> <vh00jj$1m6co$1@dont-email.me>
 <97304048-24f5-4625-82a7-d17427f2f6e3@att.net> <vh0hta$1pmql$1@dont-email.me>
 <65febd06-662b-4fa4-9aa8-f7353a79a110@att.net> <vh2k9p$29cql$1@dont-email.me>
 <157a949d-6c19-4693-8cee-9e067268ae45@att.net> <vh35nd$2d81g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:16:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="334d341cda37fe53cefa5c933e41566d";
logging-data="2571966"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TnmeLBLaKkDGdK0F1GQrss/LutPYY2wg="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OTXa1zouUEExzpSLXuGr9Nxn5Co=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vh35nd$2d81g$1@dont-email.me>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org sci.math:644486
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.

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