Re: because g⤨(g⁻¹(x)) = g(y) [1/2] Re: how

On 4/26/2024 3:27 PM, Tom Bola wrote:

Jim Burns schrieb:

ω is NOT a simply.humongous.instance of
the numbers 0 1 2 3 ...
ω marks a boundary between domains with
different descriptions (CAN and canNOT).
>
Imagine being someone who denies that
ω marks that boundary.
With or without the marker,
the domains (CAN and canNOT) remain
the domains (CAN and canNOT).

>
This is really well put!

Thank you for saying so.
It's a nice change from
what I usually hear about me.

Unfortunately,
WM is not interested in
our ideas of (our) math and logic
but in his own (mostly read up upon) ideas and
his flexible and willingly deformable "true logic"
which a "normal" person can even "feel" --
but even more is WM interested in
WHAT (we) folks CLAIM and STATE about (our) math,
more than about that math itself.

You might think I'm on a fool's quest.
You might even be correct to think that.
But what it is I am trying to do is address
the reasons WM thinks what he thinks,
whatever those reasons are.
I think it's possible that
WM thinks that
a mathematical claim is mathematical  because
of the great certainty with which it is expressed.
I think it's possible that
WM thinks that
_he_ has been playing by The Rules, even though
_we_ have been cheating,
by overriding his mathematizingᵂᴹ certainties
with "proofs" (WM uses deprecating quote marks).
I think it's possible that
WM has no objection
to the run.of.the.mill claims about
the first.upper.bound of
numbers which can be counted.to from 0
(and things like that) as long as
those claims are not made using symbols
such as  ω ℕ ℵ₀  which
WM has made his mathematizedᵂᴹ claims about.