Re: Does the number of nines increase?

Am 15.07.2024 21:08:58 joes schrieb:

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:19:36 +0000 schrieb WM:

Le 15/07/2024 à 15:33, joes a écrit :

Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:21:52 +0000 schrieb WM:

Le 14/07/2024 à 17:04, Moebius a écrit :

Am 14.07.2024 um 14:58 schrieb WM:

Le 13/07/2024 à 21:37, Moebius a écrit :

Am 13.07.2024 um 17:56 schrieb WM:

Le 13/07/2024 à 04:38, Moebius a écrit :

Am 12.07.2024 um 19:29 schrieb WM:
 > Le 10/07/2024 à 19:58, Jim Burns a écrit :

>

 >> When you say that NUF(x) doesn't changeᵂᴹ at 0 you mean that
 > it does not change its value from x < 0, namely NUF(0) = 0.
But it changes its value from aleph_0 for each and every x > 0 to
0 at x = 0,

That claim has been disproved. Something that is before each and every
x 0 sits at zero or at the negative real line.

As has been repeated, there is no single fixed number less than
all/every other number.

Hence your claim that for every x > 0: NUF(x) = ℵo, is blatantly wrong.

I don't see how that follows.
 

However, every number has a smaller one. Do you understand the
difference?

The function NUF(x) counts only real points. They are separated.

Real as in elements of R?

WM states (always) there what he feels inside his brain. Magnificat!
 

Therefore there is a first unit fraction. It is an x, a single number
which contradicts your claim.

Non sequitur. Like Moebius said, 1/(1+1/x) is smaller.