Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 8/8/2024 8:14 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 08.08.2024 um 19:13 schrieb Jim Burns:

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.

>

you (WM) find silence with regard to
the rest of your argument
more advantageous, apparently.

>
There is no rest.

>
I am finding it difficult to imagine you (WM)
as a student of physics.
You were a student of physics, right?

>
Actually, he was a professor of physics (sort of)! :-)

I've heard that.
That is the source of my confusion.

⎛ <teacher>
⎜ How long does it take the polar bear
⎜ to slide down the frictionless ice.slope?
⎜
⎜ <Wölfchen>
⎜ 37 seconds.
⎜
⎜ <teacher>
⎜ Please show your work.
⎜
⎜ <Wölfchen>
⎝ 37 seconds, you idiot.
?
>
No, I just can't see it.

>
You silly idiot,
can't you comprehend the significance of
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0
?! (!!!)
>
Hint:
WM never really *studied* mathematics ...
you see.

A physics argument and a mathematics argument
are different, but
there are things they both are NOT.
I think I would feel some of the same confusion
if WM was a practicing lawyer.
Lawyers must argue, too.
Surely, a lawyer wouldn't think that
"Boom! Here's the conclusion"
is an _argument_ ?