Re: how

On 4/22/24 10:20 AM, WM wrote:

Le 20/04/2024 à 20:48, Richard Damon a écrit :

On 4/20/24 2:38 PM, WM wrote:

Le 20/04/2024 à 19:09, Richard Damon a écrit :
>

You can't say something is actually "impossible" if it is only impossible when you artificially restrict yourself from doing thing that you can actually do.

>
Counting/mapping of all natnumbers is only possible if counting/mapping of all natnumbers is possible. You deny it and endorse it simultaneously.

 

And Mapping is possible,

 Mapping of all is only possible if all are existing. If all are existing, why are not all countable? Because many are dark.

Nope, they are all existing, but infinite in number. Until you use a logic that can count to infinity, you can't handle them.

>
Mapping and finitely counting are DIFFERENT operations.

 Agreed. Mapping ℕ --> ℕ is possible, even if almost all numbers cannot be counted to because they are dark. What else should prevent counting?
 Regards, WM

But none of them are "Dark", because all are individually usable and nameable.
We can't name ALL of them at once, but can name ANY of them we want.
That is the nature of a countably infinite set.