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

On 12/3/2024 2:32 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 03.12.2024 um 23:16 schrieb Moebius:

Am 03.12.2024 um 22:59 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

 

However, there is no largest natural number, when I think of that I see no limit to the naturals.

 Right. No "coventional" limit. Actually,
       "lim_(n->oo) n"
 does not exist.

In the sense of as n tends to infinity there is no limit that can be reached as in a so-called largest natural number type of shit? Fair enough?

 

I must be missing something here? ;^o

 Yaeh. "Set-theoretical limit" and "coventional limit" (as defined in real analysis) are different notions.
 Maybe it would be helful to write "LIM_(n->oo) ..." (instead of "lim_(n-  >oo) ...") for the former ...
 .
.
.