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

On 1/5/25 6:23 AM, WM wrote:

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.
 Regards, WM

It could be that all Mueckenheim's are just totally stupid and don't know what they are talking about.
Your "claim" is based on your own stupid lies, and shows that your "logic" has just exploded into smithereens because it just can't handle the infinite sets you apply it to.
Your basic problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about, but still claim to be an expert in it, while all you are actually doing is proving you are too stupid to understand you don't understand wht you are talking about.