Re: how

Le 08/06/2024 à 20:16, Jim Burns a écrit :

On 6/8/2024 8:42 AM, WM wrote:

If j ∈ Defble then j^j^j ∈ Defble.
Nevertheless j^j^j^j^j is finite, but there are ℵo undefinable natural numbers.

 No.

Then define natural numbers with less or no undefinable successors.

There are 0 first undefinable natural numbers.
There are 0 undefinable natural numbers.
 

This could only be disproved by defining them.

 No.
It has been disproved by
giving a description of an individual number j in ℕ⁺

j is only collectively. Proof: You can replace it by every individual like 4711 or 10^10^10000.
Can't you comprehend that difference? Or are you only a liar?
Regards, WM