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

On 05.12.2024 11:53, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 05 Dec 2024 09:54:11 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 04.12.2024 20:59, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>

Not sure why WM thinks that Cantor Pairing does not work with any
natural number... I think I am not misunderstanding WM here.

Take any natnumber you can. Almost all natnumbers are following.
Infinitely many of them cannot be "taken" or "given" and cannot be
proven to be in any mapping. But Cantor claims that all without any
exception can be taken.

Yes, of course they can? Why shouldn't they? What does it mean to you?
 

All means all with no exception. But every number you can take belongs to a vanishing subset of ℕ.