Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

On 3/16/2025 6:22 PM, WM wrote:

On 16.03.2025 20:41, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/16/2025 3:27 PM, WM wrote:

The question here is
the index of the first disappearance of Bob.

>
The answer requires you to know what 'finite' means.

>
Answer using your definition of
finite index or finite natural number.

You misunderstand.
I don't need to find out what 'finite' means.
Do you (WM) know what 'finite' means?
Indications are: you (WM) don't know.
Or, quite possibly, you refuse to know.
Whatever.
The result is the same: I can't tell you (WM).
Not 'won't', 'can't'.
I try and the answer doesn't reach you.
Bob disappears from a superovine set ==
a set for which exist
emptier.by.one sets which are NOT smaller.
The singleton size.preserving exchanges
individually preserve size
and ALSO
collectively preserve size
-- despite Bob's disappearance --
because both sets, with and without Bob,
are the same size.
The mother.of.all.superovine.sets ==
sets for which exist
emptier.by.one sets which are NOT smaller
is
the set of all sizes of ovine sets ==
sets for which exist
emptier.by.one sets which ARE smaller
The mother.of.superovine.sets
is larger.than each ovine set.
It's not any ovine set.
It's NOT larger than an emptier.by.one set.
Bob disappears without a change in set.size.