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

On 1/9/25 5:01 PM, WM wrote:

On 09.01.2025 21:24, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:51:43 +0100 schrieb WM:

>

all ordinals have an order,
but omega still has no predecessor

>
You don't know it. That does not prove its non-existence.
>
Regards, WM
>

 It has no predecessor, just like 0 has no predecessor, as it is DEFINED as the beginning of a sequence of things with successors.

 Only by moving to a HIGHER order mathematics that expands on the principles, can you get to other numbers.
 Since your logic claims that infinite numbers don't exist, you do get to go past them, as you are just blowing your brain up with its contradictions.