Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
De : wolfgang.mueckenheim (at) *nospam* tha.de (WM)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 02. Dec 2024, 15:47:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vikh9k$3cua3$1@dont-email.me>
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 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 02.12.2024 09:41, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-12-01 10:55:15 +0000, WM said:
What does "contradicts a bijection" mean?
>
It shows that the mapping claimed to be a bijection is not a bijection.
>
If so, no bijection is contradicted.
The *claim* that a bijection is possible is disproved.
>
The possibility of a bijection between the sets ℕ = {1, 2, 3, ...} and D = {10n | n ∈ ℕ} is contradicted.
>
No, it is not. You merely deny it, disregarding obvious facts.
>
Obvious is that for every interval (0, n] the relative covering is 1/10, and that there are no further black hats beyond all natnumbers n.
Irrelevant to everything quoted above.
You are unable to understand? That's not my problem. Probably every proof meets readers who don't understand it.
Regards, WM
…