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

On 01/12/2025 03:53 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson expressed precisely :

On 1/11/2025 6:09 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

joes laid this down on his screen :

Am Sat, 11 Jan 2025 11:04:56 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 11.01.2025 01:28, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/10/25 4:48 PM, WM wrote:

On 10.01.2025 21:08, Jim Burns wrote:
>

Where OUR infinityⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ "doesn't work",
it's you who's saying it doesn't work,

You are inconsistent. You claim that all natural numbers are an
invariable set. But when all elements are doubled then your set
grows,
showing it is not invariable. That is nonsense.

But the set doesn't grow.
Which element is in the doubled set that wasn't there in the first
place?

The number of elements remains constant. All odd numbers of ℕ are
deleted. That implies that new even numbers are added.

Nope. This is all just your conception of Aleph_0 as finite. It does
not behave like that. All countable sets are bijective to each other.

>
All of the smallest inductive countably infinite sets. :)
>

"The infinite sequence thus defined has the peculiar property to
contain
the positive rational numbers completely, and each of them only
once at
a determined place." [G. Cantor, letter to R. Lipschitz (19 Nov 1883)]

This just means it is a bijection to N, which has an order.
>

If Cantor has constructed a sequence containing all even numbers of
the
original set ℕ, then the doubled even numbers are missing.

What? Doubled even numbers are also even numbers.

>
He's a hopeless case.

>
Why is he a teacher? I still don't know. Well... Shit happens? ;^o

>
IIUC he teaches Philosophy of Mathematics, which he also misunderstands.

I don't, yet I have one, and teach it.
An interview of Russell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_sMXfzzyA
Monk on "Philosophy of Mathematics"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhX1ouUjDHE
Finlayson on "Paradox-Free Theory"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwX9Y2oEtHs