In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mrz., 19:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > This was the question: In a list containing every rational: Is there > > > > > always, i.e., up to every digit, an infinite set of paths (rational > > > > > numbers) identical with the anti-diagonal? Yes or no? > > > > > > This is an equally valid question: What's the difference between a duck? > > > > > From the standpoint of matheology, perhaps. > > > > From the standpoint of logic and common sense, undoubtdly. > > > > Your question makes no sense > > > > > > Did you hitherto respond > > > in an unreasonable way because you misunderstood the question? > > > > Your questions assume conditions contrary to fact. > > You do not believe that a sequence or list of all rational numbers can > be constructed?
One can "enumerate" the set of all rationals by formula, as has been quite often done, but not by physically listing all of them.
Note that one cannot ennumerate by listing even sufficiently large finite sets, so being listable other than by formula is not a relevant criterion.
> Or is there something else you > do not understand?
What none of us outside of your Wolkenmuekenheim understand is why you need its walls to protect you from the sanity of standard mathematical practice, nor why few, if any, of your alleged proofs survive scrutiny from outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, . --