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

Am 10.01.2025 um 23:15 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 1/10/2025 4:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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 <bla bla bla>

Was verstehst Du an der Aussage "omega has no predecessor" nicht, Du psychotischer Spinner?

It has no predecessor, just like 0 has no predecessor [...]

 0 has no predecessor in the unsigned integers.
 Well, we can go into the signed integers where a predecessor of 0 is 0 - 1 ?

Yes, but -1 is no ordinal number.
0 is the smallest _finite_ ordinal number and omega is the smallest _infinite_ ordinal number.
Note: the unsigned integers (i.e. the natural numbers) == the finite ordinal numbers.
.
.
.