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

On 20.01.2025 19:07, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/20/25 7:33 AM, WM wrote:

On 19.01.2025 14:29, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM formulated the question :

On 19.01.2025 11:42, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM presented the following explanation :

On 18.01.2025 12:03, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:56:13 +0100 schrieb WM:

>

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

And that is why set theory doesn't talk about "potential infinity".

>
Nevertheless it uses potential infinity.

>
No, it doesn't.

>
Use all natnumbers individually such that none remains. Fail.

>
This makes no sense.

>
It is impossible.

 Because logic that insists on dealing with an INFINITE set one by one is illogical

Yes. Therefore only the elements of a (potentially in-) finite set can be dealt with individually, i.e., one by one.

Every element of the bijection has almost all elements as successors. Therefore the bijection is none.

 Nope, the logic that can't see the completion at infinity is broken.

You contradict yourself. Bijections need individual elements.
Regards, WM