Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 27. Nov 2024, 22:47:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <36c75fb8e3762af1326350aac959c7b702445fe5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 27 Nov 2024 22:43:11 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 27.11.2024 22:14, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:15 PM, WM wrote:
It it the successor for the SET of natural numbers.
And that is nothing else but all natural numbers.
No, the set is different from its members.
By what?
By itself.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.