Sujet : Re: how
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 25. Apr 2024, 00:13:46
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v0c3na$2538n$4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/24/24 1:06 PM, WM wrote:
Le 24/04/2024 à 03:50, Richard Damon a écrit :
>
But if ω - 1 existed, it would be before ω, and thus less than it.
It is a natnumber, but dark.
>
Regards, WM
Can't be, because ALL Natural Numbers have a successor that are Natural Numbers, and ω isn't a Natural Number, and if k-1 is a Natural Number, then k is that numbers successor, and will be a Natural Number
Thus, you have just proven that your "darkness" theory is inconsistant, as ω is DEFINED to be the first transfinite ordinal above all Natural Numbers, but you logic makes it a Natural Number.
So, your system is BLOWN UP.