Re: how

On 6/10/2024 12:33 PM, WM wrote:

Le 09/06/2024 à 18:38, Jim Burns a écrit :

"One" can't perform a supertask.
That is the crack through which
WM's rhetoric enters.

>
You need not perform a supertask!

Making a finite sequence of only not.first.false claims
is not a supertask.
For making finite sequence.claims,
the supertaskishness of things.described
is irrelevant.

You need only define

Proposal 1.
Definitions are only
statements of _what the definer means_
Without evidence to the contrary,
the definer is presumed to be
honest and aware of what they mean,  and
definitions are presumed to be
true statements of what they mean.
On questions beyond what the definer means,
their definitions do not receive
a presumption of truth,
but they remain free to argue their POV.

You need only define
*one* natural number that has
less than almost all ℵo natural numbers following!

Proposal 2.
(E) The empty set exists.
(A) For existing x,y, adjunct x∪{y} exists.
(X) Two equi.membered sets are
the same set.
If proposal 2 is accepted as true,
then
presumed.true definitions can be defined
for defined.as.expected natural numbers, products,
powers, and power.towers.
By finite not.first.false claim.sequences,
we can know
that they exist and
that they all have their properties.as.expected
We know, for example,
that each natural.number.as.expected is followed by
ℵ₀ natural.numbers.as.expected.

You can't because
every number you can define has ℵo successors.

We can't because
each natural number, defined or undefined,
has ℵ₀ followers.

That means almost all are undefinable or dark.

definable ⟂ existing