On May 1, 1:01 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 1 Mai, 11:36, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~contest/ACPC2007/contest/problems/e.html > > This is a way to enumerate all rational numbers between 0 and 1 . > > What's wrong with it? > > Wrong is the assumption that *all* rational numbers can be enumerated. > *Every* rational can be enumerated. But for *every* rational number we > have: There are infinitely many not enumerated numbers remaining. > Briefly: > > forall n : the quantification "forall n" is wrong. > > Regards, WM
forall n , exists n + 1 .
Babies get poked in needles. The needle *is wrong* . You're going to to have to be a lot more specific than '"forall n" is wrong' .
If the natural numbers can be enumerated , then the rational numbers can be enumerated . Do you think the natural numbers *can be enumerated*?