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

On 12/28/2024 5:58 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 29.12.2024 um 01:48 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
 

Say, 1875520200019832...
>
Each digit is random. This [represents] a number and it's within the infinite set of unsigned integers.

 Nope. Such a "number" is not an integer.

It's an unsigned integer at every step? And any one of them, since each digit is random, well, they are all within the unsigned integers anyway? A special note to WM, this does not imply a largest unsigned integer, damn it!

 Hint: Each and every "unsigned" (i.e. non-negative) integer has to be "represented" by a finite (!) string of digits.
 .
.
.