Re: Simple enough for every reader?

On 5/17/2025 12:06 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

After serious thinking Chris M. Thomasson wrote :

On 5/17/2025 10:35 AM, WM wrote:

On 17.05.2025 19:20, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

Are you aware of the fact that in

>

{1}
{1, 2}
{1, 2, 3}
...
{1, 2, 3, ..., n}
...

>

up to every n infinitely many natural numbers of the whole set

>

{1, 2, 3, ...}

>

are missing? Infinitely many of them will never be mentioned
individually. They are dark.

>
<Yawn>

>
Exciting. Many readers claim(ed) that all natural numbers could be used as individuals. Further this would be a precondition for countability of infinite sets.

>
Show me a dark natural number?

 666

Another natural number could be first number non-zero, roll a 10 sided, faces { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 }, die until you get non zero. Then, roll 10 sided die evermore...
So build the natural number, roll, oh shit got a zero, roll again, got a 2:
2
Now Roll, roll, roll, roll, ...
279304...
We are building a natural number digit by digit using random rolls, the first roll needs to be higher that zero... Fair enough? They will all be natural numbers, right?