Revision as of 14:50, 4 April 2025 edit MartinPoulter (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 25,597 edits →Simple proof that this is bullshit: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:32, 4 April 2025 edit undo CiaPan (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 12,586 edits →Simple proof that this is bullshit: a request for some clarification Next edit →
Line 1,348: ::That is only true if you don't allow natural numbers to be [[Actual infinity\|actual infinite]], which does not make any sense in an infinite universe. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:40B:EF00:F805:A5D1:158:660B\|2A02:8109:40B:EF00:F805:A5D1:158:660B]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:40B:EF00:F805:A5D1:158:660B\|talk]]) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC) :::That all natural numbers are finite comes from any straightforward definition of the natural numbers, such as the [[Peano axioms]]. It's not a question of what I allow or don't allow, and it's nothing to do with the size of the universe. [[User:MartinPoulter\|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter\|talk]]) 14:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC) : Could you, please, clarify, where exactly you'd like to start "reading from the right" the number {{math\|1/{{radical\|2}}}}...? <br>And what natural number do you expect to get as a result? --[[User:CiaPan\|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan\|talk]]) 15:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments: Difference between revisions