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

Am Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:07:35 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 18.12.2024 10:35, joes wrote:
  > Am Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:49:51 +0100 schrieb WM:
  >> On 17.12.2024 13:34, Richard Damon wrote:
  >>
  >>> Your logic that if it holds for all FISONs, it holds for N,
  >> Please explain what Cantor does to apply more than what I apply,
  >> namely all n ∈ ℕ.
  > He „applies“ the set of all N, as opposed to every single n.
Please quote the text from which you have obtained that wrong idea.

Why is it wrong?