Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : james.g.burns (at) *nospam* att.net (Jim Burns)
Groupes : sci.logic sci.mathDate : 09. Aug 2024, 01:32:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1f25a3d6-7b0e-476d-aa99-ecb003cf763f@att.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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_ ?
…