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

Am 10.12.2024 um 22:09 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 12/10/2024 12:20 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 10.12.2024 um 20:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 12/10/2024 1:06 AM, Moebius wrote:

Am 09.12.2024 um 23:21 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 12/9/2024 2:13 PM, WM wrote:

On 09.12.2024 23:05, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM presented the following explanation :

>

In sequences of sets only sets matter.

>
Or rather _their contents_.
>

Then why are you averse to the empty set?

>
Not at all! It proves the existence of dark numbers.

>
Yawn...

>
Well, the empty set contains each and every dark number, that's for sure!

>
{ } = infinite dark?

>
Nope. Actually,
>
for all x: If x is a dark number, then x is in {}.
>
See?!

>
Shit. So, any natural number that WM cannot think of is dark? I guess.

 Who knows? It's complicated. :-P
 :-)