Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : wolfgang.mueckenheim (at) *nospam* tha.de (WM)
Groupes : sci.logic sci.mathDate : 07. Aug 2024, 18:47:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <iqelfxYKWhBbwcm10DcO5hr3scI@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 07/08/2024 à 19:07, Jim Burns a écrit :
On 8/7/2024 8:38 AM, WM wrote:
We agree that
saying "INVNUF(3.5)" doesn't prove
INVNUF(3.5) exists
It is equally true that
saying "INVNUF(3)" doesn't prove
INVNUF(3) exists
Correct.
But we have
proof INVNUF(3) does not exist.
We have proof that INVNUF(3) exists.
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 .
Why do you not consider this argument?
Regards, WM
…