Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 8/8/2024 1:20 AM, WM wrote:

Le 07/08/2024 à 23:29, Jim Burns a écrit :

On 8/7/2024 3:01 PM, WM wrote:

Le 07/08/2024 à 20:29, Jim Burns a écrit :

>

The only part of your argument which you've shared is
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0

>
That is the decisive part.
Never two or more unit fractions are added to NUF.

>
Arithmetic says:
⅟n  >
⅟(n+1)  >
⅟(n+2)  >
⅟(n+3)  >
⅟(n+4)  >
...

 NUF(0) = 0. Never more than one unit fraction can be added simultaneously to NUF(x).
==> Exists x with x = INVNUF(1).
 There are two contradicting arguments. One of them must be wrong. Or actual infinity is wrong.

You are wrong? Listen, there are infinity many unit fractions just like there are infinity many natural numbers. Wrt using unit fractions, there is no smallest one... Wrt natural numbers, there is no largest one... Got it? It's actually pretty simple... :^)
You seems to suffer from a condition that makes you think "finite" when somebody says "all" the unit fractions, or "all" the natural numbers...

You do not disclose why you think that
the equation which proves you are wrong
proves that you are right.

 

There is no rest.

>
Then there is no argument.
>
Think about it, before you admit that.
I'd like to address your _best_ argument.
Can you come up with even bad reasons
for shifted.S to exist?

 Sorry, I cannot see what you are missing.
NUF(0) = 0. Never more than one unit fraction can be added simultaneously to NUF(x).
==> Exists x with x = INVNUF(1).

Afaict, you have a HYPER finite mind that simply cannot deal with infinity in any way, shape or from in the first place... Don't project your crippling mind weakness on others? Especially on students! wow. God damn man! ;^o