Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit fractions? (infinitary)

On 10/12/24 2:50 PM, WM wrote:

On 12.10.2024 16:55, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 9:32 AM, WM wrote:

On 10.10.2024 21:48, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 09 Oct 2024 18:47:39 +0200 schrieb WM:

>

Numbers multiplied by 2 do not remain unchanged. That is not intuition
but mathematics.

They do, however, remain natural.

>
They do not remain the same set as before. They cover more of the real line. If they all are natnumbers, then there are more than at the outset. That means potential infinity. If there are not more natumbers than at the outset, then infinite numbers have been created. There is no way to avoid one of these results.

 

No, they do not cover "more" of the line, as they still cover exactly Aleph_0 point within the range of the finite numbers below omega.

 Wrong.

Why?

>
The problem is you are applying properties of FINITE sets

 Wrong, I use properties of finite numbers.

Right, to INFINTE sets, thus they blow up on you.
Your logic has blown itself to smithereens on the contradictions created by using finite logic on infinite sets.
BOOM!

 Regards, WM