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

On 09.01.2025 13:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/9/25 4:38 AM, WM wrote:

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.

Sorry it *IS* true,

It is true that {1, 2, 3, ...} is a set and {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is a greater set. Your hysteric moaning cannot change that.
Regards, WM