Re: 2N=E

Chris M. Thomasson submitted this idea :

On 11/4/2024 12:45 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:

Chris M. Thomasson pretended :

On 11/3/2024 2:40 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:56 AM, WM wrote:

On 03.11.2024 09:50, joes wrote:

pparently you do think that there is a
natural n such that 2^n is infinite.

>
If all naturals are there, then no further one is available.

>
Sigh. There are infinite natural numbers, there is no last largest one.

>
I should say infinitely many natural numbers... Sorry! ;^o
>
Damn it. :^)

 Yeah, it is best to use the words 'set of' when 'all' is invoked. The set of all natural numbers is infinite while each and every one of the elements is finite. In that sense (the set of) 'all' is different from 'each' and 'every'.

>
Each and every natural number is in all of them and vise versa? Fair enough?

Each and every natural number is in the set of all of them?
WM likes to conflate the set with its contents. He says the set is nothing but its elements. There is a relation, epsilon, between the set and its elements; some say 'contains' or 'is contained' but I prefer to think of the relation as elements 'belonging' to a set. Like you might belong to your parents, but they aren't actually containing you. This way it is easier to grasp a set with two infinite elements.