Re: how (point at infinity)

Am 15.06.2024 um 18:45 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

On 06/15/2024 09:35 AM, Moebius wrote:

Am 15.06.2024 um 18:19 schrieb Ross Finlayson:

On 06/15/2024 08:58 AM, Moebius wrote:

Am 14.06.2024 um 20:52 schrieb Jim Burns:

On 6/14/2024 12:39 PM, WM wrote:

>
Just seen here:
>
"number(s)" (WM) seems to refer to "natural number(s)" in this
context.
>

WM (Proof by contradiction):
[Assume:] Every number has ℵo successors.

>
Actually, we do not have to assume that, since it can be proved (in
the
context of mathematics/set theory).
>
An e IN: card({m e IN : m > n}) = ℵo.
>

If every number is subtracted the successors remain.

>
Huh?! Just a silly (psychotic) claim. If _every_ number "is
subtracted"
(based on "the set of numbers+their successors"), then NO numbers (and
hence no successors) "remain" [in the new/resulting set]. (After all,
the successors of any number are numbers too.*)
>
What did WM prove here? That he's a complete idiot?
>
_____________________________________________
>
*) An e IN: {m e IN : m > n} c IN.

>
If oo - oo = 0, or,

>
oo - oo usually is undefined (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line#Arithmetic_operations)
>
>
While on the other hand:
>
N - N = 0 for a large number N [=/= oo],
>
Right.
>
Is there anything you want do say, Ross?
>
Something which is RELATED to my post you quoted?

>
Sometimes instead of "undefined" we say "indeterminate form".
>
Sometimes "indeterminate forms", are, "defined".

>
The expressions oo - oo, 0 x (+/-oo), +/-oo/+/-oo (called indeterminate
forms) are usually left undefined.
>
Is there anything you want do say, Ross?
>
Something which is RELATED to my post you quoted?
>
Obviously not.
>
Hence EOD.