Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:43:39 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 21.03.2025 19:48, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

On 21.03.2025 18:39, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/21/2025 3:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 20.03.2025 23:25, Jim Burns wrote:

>

For sets not.having a WM.size, Bob vanishing isn't a size.change.

Only if reducing isn't reducing.

What you (WM) think is reducing isn't reducing.

You confuse the clear fact that in the reality of sets vanishing means
reducing with the foolish claim that cardinality was a meaningful
notion.
Learn that even Cantor has accepted that the positive numbers have
more reality than the even positive numbers.

You mean something like positive numbers have a reality score of 5, and
the even positive numbers only have a reality score of 3?

No, The number of positive numbers is |ℕ|. The number of even natural
numbers is |ℕ|/2. It needs really years of brainwashing to honestly
believe that addition of a number or subset leaves the number of
elements unchanged. It leaves the cardinality unchanged because this
notion is tantamount to potential infinity.

Aaand those numbers are equally infinite. You just never learned that
for infinite sets "reality" and cardinality don't have to correspond.

 >> "Coun[t]able" is simply another name for potential infinity.
 > Not even close.
You are simply unable to follow reasonable ideas.

"Countable" means finite or bijective to N.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.