Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers

On 11/13/2024 4:29 PM, WM wrote:

On 13.11.2024 20:38, Jim Burns wrote:

----

 Bob.

>
KING BOB!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjAg-8qqR3g
>
If,
  in a set A which
  can match one of its proper subsets B,

>
That is nonsense too.

A finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in which
each claim is true.or.not.first.false
is
a finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 in which
each claim is true.
Some claims are true and we know it
because
they claim that
when we say this, we mean that,
and we, conscious of our own minds, know that
when we say this, we mean that.
Some 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 are not.first.false and we know it
because
we can see that
no assignment of truth.values exists
in which 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 are first.false.
𝗾 is not first.false in ⟨ 𝗽 𝗽⇒𝗾 𝗾 ⟩.
Some finite 𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 of 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 are
each true.or.not.first.false
and we know it.
When we know that,
we know each claim is true.
We know each claim is true, even if
it is a claim physically impossible to check,
like it would be physically impossible
to check each one of infinitely.many.
We know because
it's not checking the individuals
by which we know.
It's a certain sequence of claims existing
by which we know.