Re: how

On 6/10/2024 4:09 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 11.06.2024 um 00:49 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:

On 6/10/2024 3:47 PM, Moebius wrote:

Am 11.06.2024 um 00:33 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>

Crap, or really bad? What did I miss here?

>
Math? :-)
>

>
I was just thinking about,
>
[1, 2, 3, 4, ...]
>
applied to:
>
[1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, ...]
>
creates
>
[.5, 1, 1.5, 2, ...]

 Ummm...
 [1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, ...] = [.5, 1, 1.5, 2, ...].
 Say, in the context of Q or IR (with decinal representation of numbers).
 

Refining to all the naturals we get:
>
[1, 2, ...]

 What do you "mean" be "refining"? :-P
 I guess you mean some sort of ""reduction"" (or "filtering").
 Actually, I've never heard about this (in a math context).
 But it certainly can be defined.
 Let's call this operation "nat".
 Then
      nat [.5, 1, 1.5, 2, ...] = [1, 2, ...] .
 And, say,
      nat [.5, 2, 1.5, 7, ...] = [2, 7, ...] .

For 7 we would have
1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2, 7/2, 8/2, 9/2, 10/2, 11/2, 12/2, 13/2, 14/2, ...
14/2 is seven, a natural? Filtering out all of the non-natural numbers 7 is in there as 14/2? Fair enough, or just as crazy as WM? Maybe worse?

 Right?
 

Make any sense?

 Sure.