Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 8/30/2024 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/30/24 9:01 AM, WM wrote:

Le 30/08/2024 à 09:21, joes a écrit :

Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 13:34:14 +0000 schrieb WM:

Le 28/08/2024 à 16:00, FromTheRafters a écrit :

WM presented the following explanation :

Le 27/08/2024 à 22:07, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :

On 8/27/2024 12:36 PM, WM wrote:

>

Dark natural numbers are larger than any visible natural number but
smaller than their bound omega.
Dark unit fractions are smaller than any visible unit fractions but
larger than their bound 0.

>
Define visible?

>
The simplest definition is this: A visible number can be expressed in
decimals or binaries.

>
Can be? Or is? Or has previously been?

>
Is or has previously been. If not yet expressed in the system, it is
dark in the system. But small dark numbers can become visisble. (They
have been called grey numbers.)

By induction that goes for every number.

>
*If actual infinity exists*, then induction fails to reach most numbers.
>
Regards, WM
>
>

Only in YOUR BROKEN finite logic.
 The problem is all in your head, which got blown up when your logic system exploded in the inconsistancies of you using finite logic on infinite sets.

For some reason I can see WM laughing because he knows better and loves the art of the troll. Yikes! Jokes on us?