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

Richard Damon formulated on Tuesday :

On 1/7/25 5:21 AM, WM wrote:

On 07.01.2025 10:40, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM has brought this to us :

On 06.01.2025 23:43, Jim Burns wrote:

 

k ∈ ℕ  ⇒  k+1 ∈ ℕ
is true for both the darkᵂᴹ and the visibleᵂᴹ.

>
One exception exists: ω-1.

>
Which remains undefined.

 Like all dark numbers.
 Regards, WM
 

>
So, you admit that you can't even define what a dark number is.

He 'defines' them as undefined or even undefinable. How he determines set inclusion or exclusion is by delusion.

THe problem is that it seems your "Dark numbers" are really just numbers that don't exist, they are just the boggy men of your naive math "thoery" to handle the fact that you think certain number must exist (like the highest natural number) so you create this non-existant set of numbers to hide the numbers that you think must exist but don't.
>
They are just LIES.

Yes, unless he actually believes what he spews.