Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary, not.ultimately.untrue)

On 12/7/2024 9:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/06/2024 08:34 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/6/2024 4:32 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/06/2024 10:51 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 12/5/2024 9:25 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

No, I say "not.ultimately.untrue" is
_more_ than "not.first.false".

>
Here is how to tell:
>
I have here in my hand a list of claims,
each claim true.or.not.first.false,
considering each point between a split of ℚ
(what I consider ℝ)
>
It is, of course, a finite list, since
I am not a god.like being (trust me on this).
>
If anything here is not.ultimately.untrue
_what_ is not.ultimately.untrue?
The points?
The claims, trustworthily true of the points?

>
Clams?
Where are the clams at/from?

>
s/clams/claims
>
If you need to know where the claims are at/from
in order to answer my question,
that also answers my question:
Your use of
'not.ultimately.untrue' and 'yin-yang ad infinitum'
is utterly divorced from
my use of
'not.first.false'.

No, the "clams", where do you address that
the "clams", inductive clams, must both close
and open to be fit for the soup?

I suggest that you get your clams
wherever you can, wherever you choose.
The claims I refer to are true.or.not.first.false
and in finite.sequences.

Then, your "utterly divorced" implies a bad marriage.

My "utterly divorced" implies that
whatever you are talking about
has no bearing on whatever I am talking about.
That sounds like the makings of a bad marriage,
so, I suppose you're right about that.

<RF>

>
Yet, I think that I've always been
both forthcoming and forthright
in providing answers, and context, in
this loooong conversation [...]
>

</RF>
>
...For.Certain.Values.Of forthcoming and forthright.