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

On 06.01.2025 22:51, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM presented the following explanation :

On 06.01.2025 19:23, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM pretended :
>

0 is a cardinal but not an ordinal.

>
Wrong.

>
Who is the zeroest clown?

 Okay, maybe not with "your" definition of the ordinal numbers.

Ordinal numbers may be written in English with numerals and letter suffixes: 1st, 2nd or 2d, 3rd or 3d, 4th, 11th, 21st, 101st, 477th, etc [Wikipedia]

This is mathematics,

No, that is matheology, a ferquently disproven theory, nowadays only supported by stultified persons.
The clearest contradiction is this:
Every union of FISONs {1, 2, 3, ..., n} which stay below a certain threshold stays below that threshold. Every FISON stays below 1 % of ℕ because when extended by 100 {1, 2, 3, ..., 100n} is less than ℕ.
The FISONs form a potentially infinite collection whereas ℕ is an invariable set with |ℕ| is a fixed transfinite number larger than every finite number |{1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = n.
Regards, WM