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

Am 03.01.2025 um 02:39 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 1/2/2025 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/2/25 12:23 PM, WM wrote:

On 02.01.2025 14:25, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/2/25 6:40 AM, WM wrote:

>

Every union of FISONs including them all which stay below a certain threshold stays below that threshold.

Nope. For each and every FISON F: F c IN.
But UNION(Set_of_FISONs) = IN.

What can't you understand?

Your psychosis. Please see a psychatrist, Mückenheim, soon!

No, because "all which stay below a certain threshold" is not EVERY FISON.

Nonsense.
Hint: For each and every FISON F: F c IN.
On the other hand:

When you actually take the union of ALL [...] FISONs, you will get the full infinite set of IN.

Right.

Stupid belief.

No, provable FACT, Mückenheim. Du dummer Spinner.

Sorry, your brain is dead.

Indeed. (->Please see a psychatrist, Mückenheim, soon!)

I think so. Well, shit happens! ;^o

Indeed.
.
.
.