Re: how

On 6/19/2024 12:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM wrote on 6/19/2024 :

Le 18/06/2024 à 23:06, Jim Burns a écrit :
>

If the set of numbers.remaining
  does not hold a first element,
then the set of numbers.remaining
  is the empty set.

>
That is your big mistake! Start to count, continue, continue, continue, .. . What you can determine that you can count. The set of not counted numbers remains infinite. But you cannot determine a first element.

 Of course you can. Every finite set 'removed' or 'counted' has a last element, add one to that to get the next element which *was* the first of the 'almost all' that you think are left.
 

All your following waffle is worthless, because it violates this fundamental truth. Simply try it instead of "proving" counterfactual nonense.

 You're lucky not to see how bad this makes you look.

Wow. WM says there is no first element... Strange!
r[0] = 0
Oh, we defined the first element for:
r[n + 1] = r[n] + 1
...forevermore...
Going from the other way is moronic. No wonder why WM thinks that there is an actual largest natural number, light and/or dark, whatever. Wow...
;^o
Moronic for sure. WM needs to learn that once I define a natural number, say 42, it has a finite number of predecessors, and an infinite number of successors. WM calls them dark, yet tried to tell me that there is a largest dark natural number, we just can't see it yet. What a joke.