On 11/18/2022 11:29 AM, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 13:55:19 UTC+1:
>> fredag 18 november 2022 kl. 10:55:35 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>
>>> Why should the application of another language be invalid?
>> It is not another language, it isapplying an irrelevant thing.
>
> The only difference between Cantor's process and mine is this: I remember where the indices have their origin.

Burp! Why are you posting your crap in sci.math ?

If you really disproved Cantor, publish a paper in a reviewed Professional Journal.

but you only have crap, so you try to nail it on the walls of sci.math, but it slides off.

<snip crap>

> Regards, WM

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
> >
> > The only difference between Cantor's process and mine is <bla>
> >
> Burp! Why are you posting your crap in sci.math ?
>
> If you really disproved Cantor, publish a paper in a reviewed Professional Journal.
>
> but you only have crap [...]

Yeah, it's crap!

Sergi o schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 19:36:20 UTC+1:
> On 11/18/2022 11:29 AM, WM wrote:
> > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 13:55:19 UTC+1:
> >> fredag 18 november 2022 kl. 10:55:35 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> >
> >>> Why should the application of another language be invalid?
> >> It is not another language, it isapplying an irrelevant thing.
> >
> > The only difference between Cantor's process and mine is this: I remember where the indices have their origin.
> Burp!

Can you see it?

> Why are you posting your crap in sci.math ?

Could be that some readers are intelligent enough to understand.
>
> If you really disproved Cantor, publish a paper in a reviewed Professional Journal.

Try to publish counter evidence of God's existence in L'Osservatore Romano?

Regards, WM

Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:

> > but you only have crap [...]
>
> Yeah, it's crap!

Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.

Regards, WM

On 11/18/2022 1:33 PM, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>
>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>
>> Yeah, it's crap!
>
> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.

Wrt are you talking about?

On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>
>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>
>> Yeah, it's crap!
>
> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.
>
> Regards, WM

your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;

1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled off later and discarded,
2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of an O stickie and then discarded,

do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment, like your O's ?

On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>
>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>
>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer
>> from infinitely many losses.
>>
>> Regards, WM
>
>
> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>
> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled
> off later and discarded,
> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of
> an O stickie and then discarded,
>
> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment,
> like your O's ?

I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...

On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>
>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>
>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.
>>>
>>> Regards, WM
>>
>>
>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>
>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled off later and discarded,
>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>
>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment, like your O's ?
>
> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...

FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.

lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP, FLAC, ALAC, WMA

fredag 18 november 2022 kl. 18:29:09 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 13:55:19 UTC+1:
> > fredag 18 november 2022 kl. 10:55:35 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>
> > > Why should the application of another language be invalid?
> > It is not another language, it isapplying an irrelevant thing.
> The only difference between Cantor's process and mine is this: I remember where the indices have their origin.
> > >
> > > Fact is the sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... can be checked by my matrices up to every finite term.
> > No, it cannot because it is irrelevant.
> Nevertheless it can be checked nd the sequence can be constructed until every finite term.

That is not how the fucking function is made you retard!

> > The checking is done through other means!
> No, it is not done at all. Cantor takes the indices from wherever. I take them from well-defined places.

No, you do not. You make up a shit thing and think it is valid, IT IS NOT!

All cantor and mathematics do is define a function from N to Q+, that is it!

>
> Regards, WM

On 11/18/2022 6:25 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>
>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer
>>>> from infinitely many losses.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, WM
>>>
>>>
>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>
>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then
>>> pulled off later and discarded,
>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top
>>> of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>
>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment,
>>> like your O's ?
>>
>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>
>
> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>
> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP,
> FLAC, ALAC, WMA

lossless compression is good, in the sense that the data is preserved.

On 11/18/2022 6:25 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>
>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer
>>>> from infinitely many losses.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, WM
>>>
>>>
>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>
>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then
>>> pulled off later and discarded,
>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top
>>> of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>
>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment,
>>> like your O's ?
>>
>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>
>
> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.

Total scam!

On 11/19/2022 1:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/18/2022 6:25 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>>
>>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, WM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>>
>>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled off later and discarded,
>>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>>
>>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment, like your O's ?
>>>
>>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>>
>>
>> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>>
>> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP, FLAC, ALAC, WMA
>
> lossless compression is good, in the sense that the data is preserved.

lossie compression, I tried a loss* compression on the alphabet, => delete the 10 least use letters, Z,Q,J,X,K,V,B,Y, and *ust put a "*" in its place. I
removed the *e*s from a t*pewriter, but that caused accidents. An*how It never caught on.

how about going from an 8 by 16 (or 8 by 8) pi*al/character to a 4 by 6 ?
We have too many letters an*wa*, and far to many words.

The ne*t generation should be taught words that are 8 letters or less, and do math in base 5. so instead of *ear 2022, it would be 31042

I may be o*er thinking this.

On 11/19/2022 12:32 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/19/2022 1:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 6:25 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45
>>>>>> UTC+1:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer
>>>>>> from infinitely many losses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, WM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then
>>>>> pulled off later and discarded,
>>>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on
>>>>> top of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>>>
>>>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the
>>>>> environment, like your O's ?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>>>
>>>
>>> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>>>
>>> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP,
>>> FLAC, ALAC, WMA
>>
>> lossless compression is good, in the sense that the data is preserved.
>
>
> lossie compression, I tried a loss* compression on the alphabet, =>
> delete the 10 least use letters, Z,Q,J,X,K,V,B,Y, and *ust put a "*" in
> its place. I removed the *e*s from a t*pewriter, but that caused
> accidents. An*how It never caught on.
>
> how about going from an 8 by 16 (or 8 by 8) pi*al/character to a 4 by 6 ?
> We have too many letters an*wa*, and far to many words.
>
> The ne*t generation should be taught words that are 8 letters or less,
> and do math in base 5.   so instead of *ear 2022, it would be 31042
>
> I may be o*er thinking this.
>

"Lossy" compression is, well, "okay" for images... Fractal compression
is lossy. However, I created a fractal cipher that actually has a chance
to compress. I setup some terms that can make it lossless, but its a bit
touchy, floating point precision and all of that fun stuff, so to speak.
I think I showed you my code on it. Storing data in the roots of complex
numbers. I can show you my code if you have not seen it already...

WM formulated on Thursday :
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44 UTC+1:
>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which can be
>> The bijection is not a sequence, it is a relation between sets.
>
> This bijection is a sequence.

Then why all the so-called matrices?

WM used his keyboard to write :
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 13:55:19 UTC+1:
>> fredag 18 november 2022 kl. 10:55:35 UTC+1 skrev WM:
>
>>> Why should the application of another language be invalid?
>> It is not another language, it isapplying an irrelevant thing.
>
> The only difference between Cantor's process and mine is this: I remember
> where the indices have their origin.

Which matters not.

Sergi o formulated on Friday :
> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>
>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from
>>>> infinitely many losses.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, WM
>>>
>>>
>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>
>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled
>>> off later and discarded,
>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of an
>>> O stickie and then discarded,
>>>
>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment, like
>>> your O's ?
>>
>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>
>
> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>
> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP, FLAC,
> ALAC, WMA

There is lossless JPEG too, but is RAW or BMP ever even compressed?

WM formulated the question :
> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44 UTC+1:
>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which can be
>> The bijection is not a sequence, it is a relation between sets.
>
> This bijection is a sequence.

This particular proof/demonstration of the bijection is.

Yes, an iterative function from such as this produces a sequence. But
consider two sets of elements, one on the left and one on the right. We
don't care what the elements are. If the relation is left total (all
elements of left set get 'used' in the pairing relation, nobody left
behind) and right unique (no double-dealing two-timers between sets)
and the right and left can be exchanged and the same still holds true
(injective and surjective) it is a bijection. No sequence needed. They
are equinumerous (same size) and in finite sets it also means they have
the same number of elements.

This particular Cantor pairing is or can be a sequence to help you
(well, everybody else) to see the bijection (the stripe pattern) but
does not restrict anyone to a step by step completion algorithm.

https://home.cs.colorado.edu/~srirams/courses/csci2824-spr14/functionTypes-18.html

On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> WM formulated on Thursday :
>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44
>> UTC+1:
>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which

[...]

You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and 1/0? Humm...

On 11/21/2022 9:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> WM formulated on Thursday :
>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44
>>> UTC+1:
>>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which
>
> [...]
>
> You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and 1/0?
> Humm...
>

Oops! I responded to FromTheRafters instead of WM.

1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1 misses a lot of Cantor pairings. There is
0/3, 2/0, ect...

Why does WM seem to think that a Cantor pair must be a proper fraction?
Well, it sure seems that way.

On 11/21/2022 9:12 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Sergi o formulated on Friday :
>> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45
>>>>> UTC+1:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>>
>>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer
>>>>> from infinitely many losses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, WM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>>
>>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then
>>>> pulled off later and discarded,
>>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top
>>>> of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>>
>>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the
>>>> environment, like your O's ?
>>>
>>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>>
>>
>> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>>
>> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP,
>> FLAC, ALAC, WMA
>
> There is lossless JPEG too, but is RAW or BMP ever even compressed?

I don't think so. A BMP can store lossless compressed data. Also, a PNG
is nice because it is lossless.

Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
> On 11/21/2022 9:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> WM formulated on Thursday :
>>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44
>>>> UTC+1:
>>>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and 1/0?
>> Humm...
>>
>
> Oops! I responded to FromTheRafters instead of WM.
>
> 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1 misses a lot of Cantor pairings. There is 0/3,
> 2/0, ect...
>
> Why does WM seem to think that a Cantor pair must be a proper fraction? Well,
> it sure seems that way.

In this specific case, we are dealing with rationals whose numerator
and denominator are positive, not non-negative.

On 11/22/2022 12:00 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/21/2022 9:12 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Sergi o formulated on Friday :
>>> On 11/18/2022 3:46 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2022 1:42 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/2022 3:33 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>>> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 21:30:45 UTC+1:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+1, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but you only have crap [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, it's crap!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says Franz Fritsche who believes that lossless exchange can suffer from infinitely many losses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, WM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> your "lossless" exchanges creates an infinite amount of litter;
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. each time a O stickie is put onto a fraction covering it, then pulled off later and discarded,
>>>>> 2. each time an X pastie is put onto a fraction hiding it, or on top of an O stickie and then discarded,
>>>>>
>>>>> do you pick up after yourself, or just let it rot in the environment, like your O's ?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if WM is familiar with lossless compression...
>>>
>>>
>>> FTX said they were a lossless exchange, too.
>>>
>>> lossless compression (the still FAT boys)=> PNG, GIF, ZIP, RAW, BMP, FLAC, ALAC, WMA
>>
>> There is lossless JPEG too, but is RAW or BMP ever even compressed?
>
> I don't think so. A BMP can store lossless compressed data. Also, a PNG is nice because it is lossless.

lossless JPEG is different from normal JPEG, and uses predictive coding, so bits are changed

RAW is not quite standerdized, and RAW can have compression

PNG is for transfering images on internet, but color space is different from other color pallets, can have lossless compression.

WM's Lossless Exchange (WMLE) suffers from loss of stickies and pasties on Xs and Os, and know one knows what the full picture is.

On 11/22/2022 5:24 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
>> On 11/21/2022 9:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> WM formulated on Thursday :
>>>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44
>>>>> UTC+1:
>>>>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and 1/0?
>>> Humm...
>>>
>>
>> Oops! I responded to FromTheRafters instead of WM.
>>
>> 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1 misses a lot of Cantor pairings. There is
>> 0/3, 2/0, ect...
>>
>> Why does WM seem to think that a Cantor pair must be a proper
>> fraction? Well, it sure seems that way.
>
> In this specific case, we are dealing with rationals whose numerator and
> denominator are positive, not non-negative.

Signed zero for fun:

1/+0 vs 1/-0

;^)

On 11/22/2022 3:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 5:24 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
>>> On 11/21/2022 9:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> WM formulated on Thursday :
>>>>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 20:46:44 UTC+1:
>>>>>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>>>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ... which
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and 1/0? Humm...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oops! I responded to FromTheRafters instead of WM.
>>>
>>> 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1 misses a lot of Cantor pairings. There is 0/3, 2/0, ect...
>>>
>>> Why does WM seem to think that a Cantor pair must be a proper fraction? Well, it sure seems that way.
>>
>> In this specific case, we are dealing with rationals whose numerator and denominator are positive, not non-negative.
>
> Signed zero for fun:
>
> 1/+0 vs 1/-0
>
> ;^)

like a plot of 1/x^2, or 1/x^(even)

On 11/22/2022 2:26 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> On 11/22/2022 3:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/22/2022 5:24 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> Chris M. Thomasson used his keyboard to write :
>>>> On 11/21/2022 9:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2022 8:47 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>> WM formulated on Thursday :
>>>>>>> FromTheRafters schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um
>>>>>>> 20:46:44 UTC+1:
>>>>>>>> After serious thinking WM wrote :
>>>>>>>>> The bijection is a sequence 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, ...
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> You are missing all a lot of Cantor parings. What about 0/1 and
>>>>> 1/0? Humm...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oops! I responded to FromTheRafters instead of WM.
>>>>
>>>> 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1 misses a lot of Cantor pairings. There
>>>> is 0/3, 2/0, ect...
>>>>
>>>> Why does WM seem to think that a Cantor pair must be a proper
>>>> fraction? Well, it sure seems that way.
>>>
>>> In this specific case, we are dealing with rationals whose numerator
>>> and denominator are positive, not non-negative.
>>
>> Signed zero for fun:
>>
>> 1/+0 vs 1/-0
>>
>> ;^)
>
>
>
> like a plot of  1/x^2, or 1/x^(even)

Fwiw, I forgot one of the states of zero.

-0, 0, +0

We can define it as ternary. :^)