On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:19:51 AM UTC, WM wrote:
> It seems you have not yet understood the main point. To contradict a nonsensical definition does not prove anything: There is no sequence containing "all" rational numbers.
It seems you have some kind of obsession going on. Zeit Geist's post didn't say anything about any sequences of rational numbers.
And a proof that the rational numbers are countable is really simple. And if there is no sequence containing "all" rational numbers, as you incorrectly claim, then the real numbers, which are a superset of the rational numbers, are clearly uncountable, as was claimed. So what is your point?