Sujet : Re: Simple enough for every reader?
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 24. May 2025, 16:03:01
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <g5-dndytMaU2Qqz1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
On 05/24/2025 04:44 AM, WM wrote:
On 23.05.2025 22:00, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/23/2025 1:34 AM, WM wrote:
>
In every system almost all natural numbers are and remain dark - if
an actual infinity of them exists.
>
Sounds like a conflation between real life and math?
>
Here is a proof, pure mathematics:
{1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors.
If {1, 2, 3, ..., n} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors, then {1, 2, 3,
..., n, n+1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors. For every n that can
be defined.
>
Regards, WM
>
>
>
No, that's not relevance logic, you have just stipulated.
Maybe you should start with Zeno's classical expositions
of the superclassical, what you got there is "see rule 1".
I suppose you're saying infinite sets are inexhaustible
by finite induction, ..., which is a very classical consideration.
This is why we have the superclassical since any mind can
ponder the unstoppable force and immovable objects and ideals
in the wonder of it all.
I suppose you at least have "infinitely many numbers" exist -
often retro-finitists have rule 1 as "none at all".
Also you'd want to pick another word since "dark" gets
involved in ethnic discrimination, or, with "evil",
that's not to say that finding complementary words after
giving some construction a name like "rational" or "real"
is simplistic like "transcendental" or either of "integer"
and "superposition" instead of "ir-rational" and "un-real",
say, that while no-one uses your terminology that setting
up the equi-interpretable is ambiguous, which is fair when
the usual standard classical way is absent a deconstructive
elementary account of a heno-theory of all mathematical objects.