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

On 1/17/25 4:56 PM, WM wrote:

On 17.01.2025 15:52, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/17/25 5:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 17.01.2025 01:37, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/16/25 10:19 AM, WM wrote:

On 16.01.2025 13:27, Richard Damon wrote:
>

The potential infinity itself isn't growing, our KNOWLEDGE of it grows as we generate its members.

>
But the knowledge of actually infinite sets isn't growing?

>

Depends how good you can think.

>
No, it has nothing to do with your missing knowledge or your lack of thinking capability. "Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. [...] Completed infinity, or actual infinity, is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done."[E. Schechter: "Potential versus completed infinity: Its history and controversy" (5 Dec 2009)]
>

That "definition" violates to definition that set don't change.

 So it is. But if infinity is potential, then we cannot change this in order to keep set theory, but then set theory is wrong.

So, you are just agreeing that your logic is based on contradictory premsises and thus is itself contradictory and worthless.

 

Some may talk of a growing set, but then you can't use any logic based on "fixed" sets.

 Correct. If infinity is potential. set theory is wrong.

Nope, just that you keep on working with contradictory definitions and thus have an exploded to smithereens logic system that is worthless.
Those that keep themselves in a consistant system, which starts with adopting a consistant set of definitions and working with them, can find things working.
But of course, since you don't understand how to do that, or even why it is needed, your stupidity just makes your logic a worthless heap of lies.

 Regards, WM