Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 17. Dec 2024, 13:34:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <14a5f85d096c87ec5fd25fcd815dd8ab8d066360@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/17/24 4:10 AM, WM wrote:
On 17.12.2024 00:47, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/16/24 3:41 AM, WM wrote:
Sorry, the limit of not indexed numbers is 9/10 according to analysis and 0 according to set theory, resulting in 9/10 = 0.
>
Which shows that one of them is likely wrong.
Of course. It is impossible that after all n the defect
f(1, n] = 9n/10 ~ n (which is correct even according to set theory) drops to zero.
Regards, WM
Just your repeating your nonsense, as you don't understand what you are talking about.
Remember, your logic says that 0 == 1, so we can't trust it.
Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)