Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 22. Aug 2024, 08:35:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <ee9a889a8143efb488bfc9018dc0c52c449bfe78@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 19 Aug 2024 11:32:44 +0000 schrieb WM:
Le 17/08/2024 à 16:29, Richard Damon a écrit :
On 8/17/24 9:28 AM, WM wrote:
Le 16/08/2024 à 19:39, Jim Burns a écrit :
no element of ℕᵈᵉᶠ is its upper.end, because for each diminishable k
diminishable k+1 disproves by counter.example that k is the upper.end
of ℕᵈᵉᶠ
SBZ(x) starts with 0 at 0 and increases, but at no point x it
increases by more than 1 because of ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0.
Therefore there is a smallest unit fractions and vice versa a greatest
natnumber. What can't you understand?
But there is no point (>0) where it has a finite value,
You can't see it and you are unable to derive it from mathematics. But
blindness is not an argument.
Neither is darkness.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Re: Replacement of Cardinality