Am Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2013 17:53:27 UTC+1 schrieb christian.bau: > 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.
But the claim that the set is countable says. > > > > And a proof that the rational numbers are countable is really simple.
And really wrong. > > And if there is no sequence containing "all" rational numbers, as you incorrectly claim,
That is only contrary to your obsession.
then the real numbers, which are a superset of the rational numbers, are clearly uncountable, as was claimed. So what is your point?
Every infinite set is uncountable in inaccessible, because every accessed natural n has finitely many predecessors and infinitely many successors. It is simply foolish to assume that more than 0 % could be applied, counted or whatever you think.
Therefore this expression is useless, since infinite is enough.