Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

On 3/20/2025 3:52 PM, WM wrote:

On 20.03.2025 16:45, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/20/2025 5:10 AM, WM wrote:

If Bob leaves the matrix,
then logic is violated.

>
That size must change with membership
can be abbreviated as 'WM.logic'.

>
Size of sets does not change.
No Bob can vanish.

Sets having WM.sizes obey WM.logic.
For sets not.having a WM.size,
Bob vanishing isn't a size.change.

Our sets do not change.

>
But you claim that
the set of O's shrinks from infinity to empty.

I claim that
the set of X's and O's is the same size as
the set of X's,
sets which do not have a WM.size.
Our sets do not change.

If Bob leaves the matrix,
then logic is violated.
Therefore Bob cannot leave the matrix
in reasonable mathematics.

>
Not all sets obey WM.logic.

>
All manipulations on sets obey logic.

Sets having WM.sizes obey WM.logic.
For each WM.size, there is a larger WM.size.
Each WM.size is smaller than
a WM.size between it and the size of
the set of all and only WM.sizes.
The set of all and only WM.sizes
doesn't have a WM.size and
doesn't obey WM.logic.