Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s math 
Sujet : Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
De : james.g.burns (at) *nospam* att.net (Jim Burns)
Groupes : sci.math
Date : 16. Mar 2025, 20:41:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <578344c0-4d58-4dcb-8a89-988e3e60f9d7@att.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/16/2025 3:27 PM, WM wrote:
On 16.03.2025 20:17, Jim Burns wrote:
On 3/16/2025 2:40 PM, WM wrote:

Finite means a natural number.
>
Circular.
>
Of course.
Every definition is circular
No.

If you don't know
try to learn what they are.
1 and if n then n+1.
 Non.circular!
 But incomplete.
Add 'emptiest' to it, and you're there.

Every definition is circular
in that it states
what has been known already
in other words.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/

The _emptiest_ set with 1 and if n then n+1
does not hold dark numbers,
>
The question here is
the index of the first disappearance of Bob.
The answer requires you to know what 'finite' means.
The signs for that ever happening are not good.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
12 Mar 25 * The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series426WM
12 Mar 25 `* Re: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series425Alan Mackenzie
12 Mar 25  `* Re: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series424WM
12 Mar 25   `* The non-existence of "dark numbers" [was: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series]423Alan Mackenzie
12 Mar 25    +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" [was: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series]419WM
12 Mar 25    i+* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"389Alan Mackenzie
12 Mar 25    ii`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"388WM
12 Mar 25    ii `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"387Alan Mackenzie
12 Mar 25    ii  +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"6Moebius
13 Mar 25    ii  i+- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1WM
13 Mar 25    ii  i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"4Alan Mackenzie
13 Mar 25    ii  i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3Moebius
13 Mar 25    ii  i  `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"2WM
13 Mar 25    ii  i   `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
13 Mar 25    ii  +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"376WM
13 Mar 25    ii  i+* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"374Alan Mackenzie
13 Mar 25    ii  ii+* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"372WM
13 Mar 25    ii  iii+* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3joes
13 Mar 25    ii  iiii`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"2WM
14 Mar 25    ii  iiii `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
13 Mar 25    ii  iii`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"368Alan Mackenzie
14 Mar 25    ii  iii `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"367WM
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"7FromTheRafters
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"6WM
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"5FromTheRafters
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i  `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"4WM
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i   `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3FromTheRafters
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i    +- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" (thread too long, nothing in it)1Ross Finlayson
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i    `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1WM
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"358Alan Mackenzie
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"357WM
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"355Alan Mackenzie
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"354WM
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"346Alan Mackenzie
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"345WM
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"4joes
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3WM
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"2joes
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i  `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1WM
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"337Alan Mackenzie
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"336WM
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"331Alan Mackenzie
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"330WM
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"243Jim Burns
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"242WM
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"241Jim Burns
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i  `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"240WM
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i   `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"239Jim Burns
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i    `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"238WM
17 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i     `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"237Jim Burns
17 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i      `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"236WM
17 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i       `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"235Jim Burns
17 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i        `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"234WM
17 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i         `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"233Jim Burns
18 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i          `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"232WM
18 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i           `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"231Jim Burns
18 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i            `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"230WM
19 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i             `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"229Jim Burns
19 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i              `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"228WM
19 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i               `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"227Jim Burns
20 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"226WM
20 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                 `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"225Jim Burns
20 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                  `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"224WM
20 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                   `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"223Jim Burns
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                    `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"222WM
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                     `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"221Jim Burns
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                      `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"220WM
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       +* The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]161Alan Mackenzie
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       i+* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]40Moebius
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       ii+* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]37Moebius
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii+* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]2Moebius
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iiii`- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]1Moebius
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1034Alan Mackenzie
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii +* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1032Moebius
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii i+- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 101Ross Finlayson
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii i+* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1029Ralf Bader
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1028Moebius
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii +* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 102Moebius
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii i`- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 101Moebius
23 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1025Ross Finlayson
23 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii  `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 1024Jim Burns
23 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii   `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)23Ross Finlayson
24 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    +* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)19Chris M. Thomasson
24 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)18Jim Burns
24 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i +* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)11Ross Finlayson
24 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)10Jim Burns
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)9Ross Finlayson
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i  +* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)3Jim Burns
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i  i`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)2Ross Finlayson
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i  i `- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)1Jim Burns
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i  `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)5Jim Burns
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i   `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)4Ross Finlayson
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i    `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)3Jim Burns
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i     `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)2Ross Finlayson
25 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i i      `- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)1Jim Burns
26 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)6Chris M. Thomasson
27 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i  `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)5Jim Burns
27 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i   `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)4FromTheRafters
27 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i    +- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)1Jim Burns
27 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i    `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)2Ross Finlayson
27 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    i     `- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)1Ross Finlayson
24 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii ii    `* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 (theory of theories)3Jim Burns
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii i`- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 101WM
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       iii `- Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 101WM
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       ii`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]2WM
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       i`* Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]120WM
21 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3FromTheRafters
22 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i i                       `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"55Jim Burns
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"85Alan Mackenzie
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i i `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
16 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"4joes
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"3Chris M. Thomasson
15 Mar 25    ii  iii  i i `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"7joes
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  i `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
14 Mar 25    ii  iii  `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
14 Mar 25    ii  ii`- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1Chris M. Thomasson
13 Mar 25    ii  i`- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"1joes
13 Mar 25    ii  `* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"4Ben Bacarisse
12 Mar 25    i`* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" [was: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series]29Jim Burns
12 Mar 25    +* Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" [was: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series]2FromTheRafters
12 Mar 25    `- Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" [was: The existence of dark numbers proven by the thinned out harmonic series]1Jim Burns

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal