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

On 26.12.2024 13:55, Richard Damon wrote:

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?
>

The LAST one, that completes the set.

Cantor misses it. Therefore I do not use it either.

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.#

This fact shows that "all" cannot be removed individually. They can only be removed collectively. Proof of dark numbers.
Regards, WM