Re: Does the number of nines increase?

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:19:36 +0000 schrieb WM:

Le 15/07/2024 à 15:33, joes a écrit :

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:21:52 +0000 schrieb WM:

Le 14/07/2024 à 17:04, Moebius a écrit :

Am 14.07.2024 um 14:58 schrieb WM:

Le 13/07/2024 à 21:37, Moebius a écrit :

Am 13.07.2024 um 17:56 schrieb WM:

Le 13/07/2024 à 04:38, Moebius a écrit :

Am 12.07.2024 um 19:29 schrieb WM:
 > Le 10/07/2024 à 19:58, Jim Burns a écrit :

>

 >> When you say that NUF(x) doesn't changeᵂᴹ at 0 you mean that
 > it does not change its value from x < 0, namely NUF(0) = 0.
But it changes its value from aleph_0 for each and every x > 0 to
0 at x = 0,

That claim has been disproved. Something that is before each and every
x 0 sits at zero or at the negative real line.

As has been repeated, there is no single fixed number less than
all/every other number.

Hence your claim that for every x > 0: NUF(x) = ℵo, is blatantly wrong.

I don't see how that follows.

However, every number has a smaller one. Do you understand the
difference?

The function NUF(x) counts only real points. They are separated.

Real as in elements of R?

Therefore there is a first unit fraction. It is an x, a single number
which contradicts your claim.

Non sequitur. Like Moebius said, 1/(1+1/x) is smaller.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.