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

On 12/2/2024 5:02 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/2/2024 6:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 12/1/2024 9:50 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 02.12.2024 um 00:11 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 11/30/2024 3:12 AM, WM wrote:

 

Finite initial segment[s]:
F(n) = {1, 2, 3, ..., n}    (n e IN).

[...]
>
When WM writes:
>
{1, 2, 3, ..., n}
>
I think he might mean that
n is somehow a largest natural number?

 As a rule of thumb,
WM rarely refers directly to 'his' numbers.
 He will follow along some normal mathematics
  until it gets to something he doesn't like,
call it 'matheology' and
claim that somehow proves 'dark numbers'.
 I suspect that the dearth of direct 'dark' references
  gives WM more room to wave his hands.
 I suspect that he is aware that,
the more he talks about 'his' numbers,
the more visible their seams and cracks become.
 That theory implies that, on some level of his mind,
WM knows he is trolling us.
 

For some reason a thought crossed my mind several times before. Is WM trolling us? He knows better and is not stupid at all! ;^o ? Humm... Just a thought. I hope I am right. :^D