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

On 05.01.2025 12:09, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM wrote :

On 04.01.2025 19:26, Moebius wrote:

>

That is not an example but a silly claim contradicted by my theorem. My theorem is proved by the fact that nothing is in the union which could make it larger than all elements in the union.

>

>

Every union of FISONs which stay below a certain threshold stays below that threshold.
>

So the union of (the set of) _all_ FISONs does NOT "stay below" IN, though each and every FISON does.

>
Your matheologial belief is outside of mathematics and does not deserve further discussion.

 Then STFU and go away.

>
It could be that not all set theorists are that stultified. Maybe I can save some of them from this counter logical belief.