Re: More complex numbers than reals?

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> writes:
(AKA Dr. Wolfgang Mückenheim or Mueckenheim who teaches "Geschichte des
Unendlichen" at [Technische] Hochschule Augsburg.)
 

No rule is better than a foolish rule, if it yields nonsense like Cantor's
"bijections".

 Is that why you still can't define set membership, difference and
equality in WMaths such that you could prove one of the most surprising
results of WMaths: that sets E and P exist such that E in P and P \ {E}
= P?