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

On 12/24/24 5:45 AM, WM wrote:

On 23.12.2024 15:32, Richard Damon wrote:

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

 

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.

 I do what Cantor did. There is no last one. You cannot show an n that I do not use. There is none. Therefore all your arguing breaks down.
 Regards, WM
 

No, you do NOT do what Cantor did, but alter it, as you can't understand what Cantor did.
When you admit that there is no "last" natural number, then YOUR logic is the one that breaks down.