Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 08/28/2024 05:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 8/28/2024 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/28/24 8:57 AM, WM wrote:

Le 28/08/2024 à 04:13, Richard Damon a écrit :
>

>
Well NUF(x) does not exist, but that doesn't say that infinity is
not actual,

>
So the unit fractions are actually existing but their number isn't?
Strange!
>
Regards, WM
>
>
>

>
There number exists, it is aleph_0.
>
You just can't count them from the "end" that doesn't have an end.

>
For some damn reason I think WM thinks aleph_0 means a largest natural
and/or smallest unit fraction. The hyper, really big finite type of
thought? Humm... Any thoughts? ;^)

In a generous reading, is both generous to yourself,
generous to the author, and generous to the reader
to whom you'd convey.
Then, if you can connect the dots where the upstream has
worn a hole in the page assigning the word they got to
the word they want, and put it together with something
that fits, there are plentiful examples of that here.
Then, being generous doesn't much help when it's a
herd of comment-echoes and their long-term memory
gets truncated about each couple weeks.
Then here these usual notions like Cantor's "count backwards"
is something everybody who thinks these things over has to
confront at some point, and in Cantor's case for example
he says "forget I said that, as long as you associate
it with mathematical rigor" and it's like "no, I will not,
it's an object of mathematics and it speaks for itself".
So anyways "infinity" is big enough to have lots of
things about it, and Russellian Cantorian ZF is at
most a fragment.
Not that there's anything wrong with that,
except it's not "all that".