Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:50:08 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 21.03.2025 21:41, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM pretended :

On 21.03.2025 18:39, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/21/2025 3:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 20.03.2025 23:25, Jim Burns wrote:

>

For sets not.having a WM.size, Bob vanishing isn't a size.change.

Only if reducing isn't reducing.

What you (WM) think is reducing isn't reducing.

>
You confuse the clear fact that in the reality of sets vanishing means
reducing with the foolish claim that cardinality was a meaningful
notion.
Learn that even Cantor has accepted that the positive numbers have
more reality than the even positive numbers.

Not surprising.

He said that is not in
conflict with the identical cardinality of both sets. And he was
right! "Counable" is simply another name for potential infinity.
Therefore vanishing odd numbers means reducing the reality of the set.

This is called a subset.

Therefore the sentence "What you (WM) think is reducing isn't
reducing" exhibits you as a snooty dilettante who cannot distinguish
between cardinality and reality.

 
What does reality have to do with it?

 
Reality describes that fact that proper subsets have fewer elements than
sets. Cardinality describes the fact that potential infinity never can
be finished.

No, sets are immutable.

--
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.