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

On 12/26/24 6:36 AM, WM wrote:

On 24.12.2024 15:06, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

No, you do NOT do what Cantor did,

 What n do I not use?
 Regards, WM
 

The LAST one, that completes the set.
Your logic insists on that, but you don't use it.
The fact that after any finite number of removals, there are still elements does not mean that when you remove *ALL* the elements there will still be some left.
Your logic just is using the wrong logic of the conditional you are claiming to be using, and thus the results do not hold.
Since your logic CAN'T complete, doing infinite work individually, it can't talk about the results when it does complete.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.