Re: 2N=E

Am Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:49:48 +0200 schrieb WM:

On 24.10.2024 14:10, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:46:05 +0200 schrieb WM:

On 23.10.2024 20:59, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:03:48 +0200 schrieb WM:

On 23.10.2024 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>

Your complete set of the Natural Numbers is not complete.

I take what is given: the complete set of natural numbers. I double
it an get, according to mathematics 2n > n greater numbers than were
given to me.

Every single number is greater than its original, but for every
number in the mapped set there is a greater one in the former set.

Impossible since all have been mapped, even the greater ones.

Yes, and those are mapped to even greater ones!

The possibility of always even greater ones in natural numbers proves
potential infinity.

You have it backwards. Surely the "complete" set should not be missing
those greater numbers that the "potential" set includes.

The greater ones have not been doubled because doubling of a complete
set creates a set covering a greater interval than covered before. (Half
the density implies twice the extension.)

They have also been doubled, along with their doubles. The powers of 2 and
their multiples form a subset of the naturals. The "size" of this set
is omega, and 2w=w, regardless of "reality".

--
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.