Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 15. Aug 2024, 17:18:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <a5e303478498e3d8dfea88397eff8b4475ffe647@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sun, 11 Aug 2024 12:29:13 +0000 schrieb WM:
Le 10/08/2024 à 19:28, Jim Burns a écrit :
On 8/10/2024 11:54 AM, WM wrote:
Le 09/08/2024 à 02:32, Jim Burns a écrit :
Surely, a lawyer wouldn't think that "Boom! Here's the conclusion"
is an _argument_ ?
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0
If an interval contains unit fractions, then it contains a first one.
What is the largest real number in (0, 1)?
Therefore there can only be a single first unit fraction.
No one has said there are two first unit.fractions.
What forbids zero first unit.fractions?
The existence of unit frations enforces one or more first unit
fractions.
No.
What causes an exception: nₓ ∈ ℕ without ⅟(nₓ+1) ?
The end of the positivee axis.
What fucking end
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Re: Replacement of Cardinality