Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: how Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:54:26 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <7FlE2ap2lYCEKbW6F4ekYb8aZ3s@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:54:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e2583a017ace5d616772eafd574ebb78"; logging-data="1851950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186VFhfptb94tidNRyjwkvjStyTd4zYc1A=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KcMMy4U5RLp2KvBpzzDG6Vu0V5E= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2411 On 4/17/2024 11:49 AM, WM wrote: > Le 17/04/2024 à 01:27, Richard Damon a écrit : >> On 4/16/24 10:59 AM, WM wrote: > >> Note, no "Natural Number" is actually infinite, that distinction falls >> on omega. But the SET of the Natural Numbers is Actually Infinite in >> Size, having a size of Aleph_0. > > The size of ℕ is |ω|. That means ℕ extends on the ordinal line from 0 to > ω. By multiplying every natural number the extendion is doubled. That is > mathematics. Every contrary opinion is foolish. >> >> Does that mean the Natural Numbers themselves are individually only >> "Potentially Infinite" but the set of them is "Actually Infinite" by >> your definitions? > > The visible natural numbers are potentially infinite. The set ℕ is > assumed to be actualy infinite. This cannot be known let alone be > proven. The set of natural numbers is infinite... What is wrong with you, damn it! ;^o > But we can assume it and draw conclusions. One of them is that > nothing fits between all natural numbers and ω. Rolling eyes....