Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

On 18.03.2025 12:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

The set of FISONs is an inductive set. But it is not ℕ because
∀n ∈ UF: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.

That "because" doesn't hold

Because you say so? That's not significant.

There's no connection between the bit before the because and the bit
afterwards.  You're the one who's lacking a degree in maths, not me, and
it shows.

Even if you can't understand the correct argument, ....

You wouldn't know a correct mathematical argument if it bit you on the
nose.

it is decisive: ℕ_def contains all numbers the subtraction of which
from ℕ does not result in the empty set. Obviously the subtraction of
all numbers which cannot empty ℕ cannot empty ℕ.

I've told you and explained to you, I don't know how many times, that
that is ill-conceived meaningless gibberish.  Repeating it in the hope
it will somehow become valid won't work.

[ .... ]

The subtraction of the set of all FISONs all of which cannot empty ℕ
cannot empty ℕ.

Gibberish.

Try to improve your thinking ability. Then come back. At the present
stage you only waste my time.

You try improving your own, first.  I'll note your failure to address
all the mathematical points in my last post.  It seems you're unable to
do so.

If you want to avoid "your time being wasted", then stop posting
mathematical falsehoods and nonsense on this newsgroup.

Regards, WM

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).