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

On 1/10/25 11:32 AM, WM wrote:

On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:

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

 

You don't know it. That does not prove its non-existence.

 

It has no predecessor,

 Prove it under the premise of dark numbers.
 

Who asks for proofs based on false premises?
I guess only fools that believe in their own lies.

Investigate what happens when all elements of the set {1, 2, 3, ..., ω} are doubled. Note that the equality of all distances between neighbours remains, as conserved property.
 

So you think that 2 - 1, the distance between the first two elements is the same as 4 - 2, the distance between the doubled set?
One problem with your claim, is that the last element of your set, doesn't HAVE a defined distance between it and a "neighbour", since there isn't a neighbor to it in the sequence, so your premise that you are claiming is just a falsehood.
Something you think must be true, because you are too ignorant to understand the limitations of your understanding.
Sorry, I don't try to prove things based on lies, I will leave that to idiots like you.

Regards, WM