Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 12. Jan 2025, 17:55:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <aaab8a8ef739a238d9b96dfd043afe7bea2f92fe@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 16:56:03 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 12.01.2025 16:48, FromTheRafters wrote:
After serious thinking joes wrote :
Am Sun, 12 Jan 2025 13:41:27 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 12.01.2025 12:59, FromTheRafters wrote:
WM submitted this idea :
On 11.01.2025 15:09, FromTheRafters wrote:
joes laid this down on his screen :
*their
Indeed! but this tagline is automatically generated by my newsreader. I
guess it needs a woke upgrade.
Can you correct it when you quote me?
It's not "woke" not to assume everybody is a male.
Go woke, go broke.
Fuck you.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.