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

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.
 >> He said that is not in conflict with the identical cardinality of both
 >> sets. And he was right!
 >
 > I doubt very much Cantor said such rubbish.
You have pronounced your own sentence: Your opinions are rubbish.
 >  He was a mathematician.
And you are not at all educated in this field.
 >> "Coun[t]able" is simply another name for potential infinity.
 >
 > Not even close.
You are simply unable to follow reasonable ideas.
 >> Therefore the sentence "What you (WM) think is reducing isn't
 >> reducing" exhibits you as a snooty dilettante who cannot distinguish
 >> between cardinality and reality.
 >
 > Hah!  He's got to you, has he?
No, that is my judgement on JB.
Regards, WM