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

On 12/10/2024 02:46 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

joes pretended :

Am Mon, 09 Dec 2024 22:28:41 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 09.12.2024 20:23, joes wrote:
 > Am Mon, 09 Dec 2024 10:04:23 +0100 schrieb WM:
 >> On 08.12.2024 19:01, Jim Burns wrote:
 >>
 >>> You (WM) are considering infinite dark.finite.cardinals,
 >>> which do not exist.
 >> Then analysis is contradicted in set theory.
 >> ∀n ∈ ℕ: E(1)∩E(2)∩...∩E(n) = E(n).
 >> The limit of the left-hand side is empty, the limit of the
 >> right-hand side is full, i.e. not empty.
 >> I do not tolerate that.
 > What is the RHS limit?
There is no limit in set theory, contrary to the LHS limit { }.

Dafuq? How do you derive that? Why not for the RHS?

>
That sounds downright sinister.

Hey now - not everybody knows that sinister
is just old-fashioned for left-handed, ....
Don't make them esquerda.
Point-dexter
How about the limit or _exhaustion_ when
_exhausting_ the act of shifting, versus
_exhausting_ the act of collecting, when,
the result of one is different the result
the other.
Sometimes half-right is half-wrong, you see.
When wrong won't do, ....