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

On 13.12.2024 03:29, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/12/24 9:44 AM, WM wrote:

On 12.12.2024 13:26, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/12/24 4:53 AM, WM wrote:

On 12.12.2024 01:38, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/24 9:04 AM, WM wrote:

>

In mathematics, a set A is Dedekind-infinite (named after the
German mathematician Richard Dedekind) if some proper subset B of
A is equinumerous to A. [Wikipedia].

>

So? That isn't what Cantor was talking about in his pairings

It is precisely this.

>

No, Cantors pairing is between two SETS, not a set and its subset.
Yes, we can call the subset a set, since it is, but then when we look
at it for the pairing, we need to be looking at its emancipated
version, not the version tied into the original set.

>
Both is the same. In emancipated version it is not as obvious as in
the subset version.

 
Nope, when the subset is considered as its own independent set, the
operation you want to do isn't part of its operations.

 
The subset is considered as its own independent set D = {10n | n ∈ ℕ}
and then it is attached to the set ℕ = {1, 2, 3, ...}. R´That does not
change the subset.