I can't do that for real numbers.
The more I learn about this stuff, the more I come to understand how the quantitative difference between cardinalities is a red herring (e.g. CH independent from ZFC). It's the qualitative difference between these two sets that matter. The real numbers are richer, denser, smoother, etc. than the natural numbers, and those are the qualities we care about.
Most of math history is stellar, studded with great works of geniuses, but some results were sanctified and prohibited for questioning due to various forces that were active during the times.
Application of regular logic such as comparison, mapping, listing, diagonals, uniqueness - all are the rules that were bred in the realms of finiteness and physical world. You can't use these things to prove some theories about things are not finite.
Fundamentally, all I need to define a graph is a set of vertices v \in V and function Neighbors(v). And that really is all is needed for the most foundational set of graph algorithms.
Everything else are case-by-case constraints. Does A->B imply B->A? is the node set partitionable with certain constraints? Are there colors? labels?
To make things even more general I can go up one level and consider the hypergraph. In which case I just have a set of vertices, and a set of sets of vertices. This can be represented in a myriad of different ways depending on what you are interested in. Of which (non-hyper) graph is simply a special case.
An alternative way to think about it perhaps from the database perspective, is that its a query optimization and indexing problem. Depending on what questions you want to ask about the graph, there will be different ways to represent the graph to answer the question better. Just like there is not one way to represent the abstraction called "Table", there is not one way to do "Graph" either. It really depends on the questions you care about.
It is both curious and sad to see the outsize attention given to bitter polemicists (and not just in physics).
Please read https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01054-6 .
Edit: downvotes? let me rephrase: if you care about particle physics then there was no reason to ignore the original proposal. if you care about outrage, on the other hand...
Every night around midnight it would start singing. It would loop through maybe 8 songs. Some of them sounded very much like the local environment. For example one song was pretty much identical to sirens that I would periodically hear.
It would last for an hour or two each night. I don’t know where the bird went the rest of the year. That was almost ten years ago and I still miss falling asleep to that.