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

On 11/19/2024 09:41 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/19/2024 8:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/19/2024 05:15 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/18/2024 11:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/18/2024 05:45 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/18/2024 04:56 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

>

First things first.
Are there non.well.ordered finite sequences, Ross?

>

Of course I won't address your response.
You're insisting on speaking a language
which sounds misleadingly like mine,
misleadingly like, for example, Cohen's, too.

>

Why would you say, "misleadingly"?

>
Are there non.well.ordered finite sequences, Ross?
>
>

How about a stoplight?
In the temporal, and modal, and finite, thus fixed,
there's a well-ordering of that.
In the quasi-modal of whatever variety: there is not.
What I'm saying is that you can take back
that "not.first.false" guarantees a claim
for inference, when it doesn't.
"Broadly" speaking, ....
Earlier you disputed that "not.first.false"
and "not.ultimately.untrue" were any different.
Now you don't.