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

On 09.01.2025 00:45, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 08 Jan 2025 23:06:27 +0100 schrieb WM:

 

The set {1, 2, 3, ...} is smaller by one element than the set {0, 1, 2,
3, ...}. Proof: {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = {0}. Cardinality
cannot describe this difference because it covers only mappings of
elements which have almost all elements as successors.

You can't talk about size without using |abs|.

 I can and I do. And everybody understands it in case of subsets. This proves, in this special case (and more is not required), that Cantor's size is only a qualitative measure, not a quantitative one.
 Regards, WM