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

On 12/24/2024 12:40 PM, Moebius wrote:

>

On 12/24/2024 02:45 AM, WM wrote:

On 23.12.2024 15:32, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>

Show an n that <bla bla bla> (WM)

>

The LAST one, which you say must exist to use your logic. (RD)

>

[...] There is no last one. (WM)

>
This fucking asshole full of shit is __a pathological liar__.
>
In dsm he just claimed that "ω-1" is the largest/last natural number.
>
.
.
.
>
>
>

Oh, you mean like "counting backwards" like Cantor
described, before retracting it?
Here we've just been calling that "infinite-middle",
when there's both ends, it's really related to counting,
counting to 1, counting to 2, counting to 3,
counting up the infinite-middle,
anyways yeah you can credit Cantor for that same kind of idea,
which isn't a bad idea,
yet does demand reconciling it with the entire theory
and all the domain of discourse.
Look up-thread and notice a bunch more
about "infinite-middle".
Did you ever hear that Aristotle
had a definite difference potential and actual, infinity?
He also said it's actual, so,
some only read the odd pages.
You can call them "half-right",
yet, when it's about "all",
then that's "half-wrong".