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

On 1/6/2025 3:28 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson laid this down on his screen :

On 1/5/2025 9:23 AM, WM wrote:

On 05.01.2025 13:47, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/5/25 5:37 AM, WM wrote:

On 04.01.2025 14:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/4/25 3:42 AM, WM wrote:

>

On 1/3/2025 2:48 PM, WM wrote:

On 03.01.2025 19:46, Jim Burns wrote:

>
All finite.ordinals removed from
the set of each and only finite.ordinals
leaves the empty set.

>
But removing every ordinal that you can define (and all its predecessors) from ℕ leaves almost all ordinals in ℕ.∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
>

And what keep you from "defining" the rest of the Natural Numbers.

>
Try it yourself. Then you will see it.

>
But I CAN define any of the Natual Numbers, the whole infinite set of them.

>
No. Every defined number is far from the complete set.

>
If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

 If something 'hears' it, yes.

;^) I was thinking that if a natural number that WM has not thought of yet proves there must be a largest one. WM crazy town type of shit.
lol! He is hyper finite, and that's the way it is.