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

On 12/23/2024 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/23/24 4:31 AM, WM wrote:

On 23.12.2024 02:01, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/24 5:11 PM, WM wrote:

On 22.12.2024 20:10, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/22/24 8:11 AM, WM wrote:

>

Find a natural number that is not in all intervals [1, n] which I use: ∀n ∈ ℕ [1, n].

>
But you can't use *ALL* intervals, becaue you need to use them individually

>
No, I do as Cantor did.

>

No, you do what you THINK Cantor did,

>
Show an n that I do not use with all intervals [1, n].

>
The LAST one, which you say must exist to use your logic.

 LOL! n+1?
 Am I close here? Or way off?