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

On 1/8/25 9:40 AM, WM wrote:

On 08.01.2025 13:25, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/8/25 4:06 AM, WM wrote:

On 08.01.2025 00:30, Richard Damon wrote:
>

Except you don't use *EVERY* FISON, only those below some limit n that is below a faction of infinity.

>
Show a FISON that expanded by a factor of 100 or more covers ℕ. Fail!
>

There isn't one, but doesn't need to be.

 Read your sentence above. Think over its meaning.
 Regards, WM
 

WHat is wrong with it. It is a fat that no finite FISON can cover N.
But, there is no reason that one needs to.
The fact that you think it does, is just the proof of your stupidity.
Your logic is based on the LIE that the infinte is finite.
And that LIE has blown your brain into smithereens.