Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"

Am Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:09:03 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 26.03.2025 20:59, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:37:40 +0100 schrieb WM:

On 26.03.2025 07:24, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/25/2025 6:12 PM, WM wrote:

On 25.03.2025 21:26, Jim Burns wrote:

On 3/25/2025 4:17 PM, WM wrote:

On 25.03.2025 18:46, Jim Burns wrote:

>

It's the same way in which we know that a square has four corners

and that losslvvess exchanges are lossless.

and that a set larger than any set different.sized.by.one from
other sets is not any set different.sized.by.one from other sets.

Irrelevant. Your waffle does not change basic logic.

A set larger than any set for which my waffle does not change basic
WM.logic is a set for which my waffle changes basic WM.logic.

Nothing of that kind does exist. "WM-logic" says that lossless
exchanges at finite steps are lossless and is the foundation of
rational thinking.

At finite steps, but not in the limit.

Countability is proved without limits. Bijections are one-to-one without
limit.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What can be proved to be
countable without resorting to limits? I didn't say anything about
bijections not being one-to-one, nor about them having limits???
The transformation from the initial to the final matrix can not be
achieved in finitely many steps.

--
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.