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

On 11/19/2024 02:18 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/19/2024 4:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/19/2024 11:56 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 11/19/2024 12:52 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>

The "bait-and-switch" and "back-slide"
don't go well together.
>
In either order, ....

>
⎛ Necessary and sufficient conditions for finiteness
⎜
⎜ 3. (Paul Stäckel)
⎜ S can be given a total ordering which is
⎜ well-ordered both forwards and backwards.
⎜ That is, every non-empty subset of S has both
⎝ a least and a greatest element in the subset.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_set

>
Yeah we looked at that before also,
and I wrote another, different, definition of finite.

>
Thank you for admitting that.
>
However, you (RF) might NOT be bait.and.switch.ing
if the definitions are equivalent.
>
What was the definition you wrote before?
I didn't see it in the rest of your post.
>
>

Oh, no, it was a definition of finite good for both.
What did you think it was possible to do something
actually inconsistent? That would be a poor judge
of character.
Did you think that "Methinks it is a weasel-ing"
is something that honest people would actually even
consider, without evidence?
Anyways there's only so much depth to bots.
It just clipped it and babbled-on.
If I'm admitting something: I'll tell you.
Until then you should assume I'm telling you
something either you understand because it's logical,
you don't understand because you're not, or just
don't want to because you're not.