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

On 09.01.2025 21:57, Jim Burns wrote:

On 1/9/2025 3:23 PM, WM wrote:

On 09.01.2025 20:46, Jim Burns wrote:

 

Do you (WM) disagree with
'finite' meaning
'smaller.than fuller.by.one sets'?

>
That is also true for infinite sets.

 Apparently it's true for your infiniteᵂᴹ sets.
However,
it's false for our infiniteⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ sets.

It is false for potentially infinite sets.

 Whatever claim you (WM) make about infinite sets
is not a claim about _our_ infiniteⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ sets.

I use actual infinity, you use potential infinity, best recognizable by the same cardinality of almost all your sets.
Regards, WM