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

On 1/5/2025 4:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/5/25 5:31 AM, WM wrote:

On 04.01.2025 11:59, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 04 Jan 2025 09:52:08 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 04.01.2025 05:06, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/3/25 12:15 PM, WM wrote:

>

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

Every union of a finite number of FISONs is just an admssion that you
can't do the actual union of *ALL* FISONs.

For all FISONs:|ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.

But not for the union.

>
What should make the union larger than all FISONs?
>
Every union of FISONs which stay below a certain threshold stays belown that threshold.
>
Regards, WM
>

 Because you never actually USED *ALL* FISONs, and don't understand the power that infinite sets have, because you are just proving your stupidity.

Sometimes, the frequency of his hyper "stupid" rants make me think we are the "fools" playing along with it (WM)... Oh well, shit happens...
The level of his crap is indeed on and on:
https://youtu.be/oRrlRbGT-LU
actually, is the real WM this guy in disguise?
https://youtu.be/rVtHrgdcvZA
There he is! lol.
;^)