Re: because g⤨(g⁻¹(x)) = g(y) [1/2] Re: how

On 5/1/2024 7:32 PM, Tom Bola wrote:

Am 02.05.2024 00:46:01 Jim Burns schrieb:

I think it's possible that
WM has no objection
to the run.of.the.mill claims about
the first.upper.bound of
numbers which can be counted.to from 0
(and things like that) as long as
those claims are not made using symbols
such as  ω ℕ ℵ₀  which
WM has made his mathematizedᵂᴹ claims about.

mathematizedᵂᴹ == expressed with utter.certainty
I'm not saying that utter.certainty mathematizes.
I'm saying that WM thinks it mathematizes.

I think that WM has a very fixed idea of the
"world of math" which is fixed by nature and
not a creation of culture in the mind of men
which WM thinks is given by THE ONE real nature
and by THE ONE true logic which can ONLY be
detected and "seen" rather than defined and
built.

I have tried to accommodate
the "seen.only" view of mathematics with my
little "only.not.first.false" backgrounder.
A finite sequence with no first false claim
is "seen" and must be with no false claim.
If I have had any success at all with that approach,
it appears to be no more than partial.
----
I find a recent pair of claims useful for
the purpose of theorizing what.WM.means.
<WM<JB>>

>
If n can be counted to from 0
then n⋅2 can be counted to _from n_
then n⋅2 can be counted to from 0 _through n_

>
That is true.
>

If n is before ω
then n⋅2 before ω

>
That is not true.
>

</WM<JB>>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 24 13:12:48 +0000
WM _rejected my definition_
but didn't _reject my math_
My guess is that,
whether WM is aware of it or not,
he follows this line of thought:
| Infinitenessⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ is weird.
| Infinitenessⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ is wrong.
| Infinitenessᵂᴹ is not infinitenessⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ.
| ω first infiniteᵂᴹ ordinal is not infiniteⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ.
| Stepping back from ω is to darkᵂᴹ numbers.
| Any discord which the darkᵂᴹ brings forth is darkᵂᴹ
| and cannot affect the visibleᵂᴹ
WM will say that
ω is the first infiniteᵂᴹ ordinal,
but he does NOT mean that
ω is the first infiniteⁿᵒᵗᐧᵂᴹ ordinal.