From: Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IGJlY2F1c2UgZ+KkqChn4oG7wrkoeCkpID0gZyh5KSBbMS8yXSBS?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?e=3A_how?=
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 21:14:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <aa7ab7ba-257c-4b13-bb9e-3ee0710150f6@att.net>
References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp>
 <ce588a75-4ea6-4a78-8be2-d729e80d19cd@att.net>
 <AddHfbN-qz8pWaxRgIvS5xiFQw8@jntp>
 <d56cbcbb-3d26-4606-8572-366eaadc608f@att.net>
 <4P8mN6L4GiZRL_cw9VoFlkFRsyI@jntp>
 <0682ec96-856f-4659-918d-f4f08edada3e@att.net>
 <IzQUzuTPV4P3XMbkfmQrEzl_xMs@jntp>
 <e261dbb5-4d89-4753-aee0-db91a1924356@att.net>
 <6xC7D4OsaY-Dbt6UCvgZwElFXdY@jntp>
 <ff51fcc9-94ac-4c33-afd8-21c01cd7bb03@att.net>
 <sdM6tt0a2wvVmLtfLrvf50vhr-o@jntp>
 <ec1c7139-44dc-43da-a81b-a788524ec0fa@att.net> <v1h5pf$8kct$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 03:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba4ae244cd27e701141832087bd74da2";
	logging-data="303601"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WN0xjl3booaPwbwzrWqL1CFnnDsijap8="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kO4foYOtCnRfxti08bnD0U3huZY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1h5pf$8kct$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2554

On 5/8/2024 8:35 PM, Moebius wrote:
> Am 08.05.2024 um 23:55 schrieb Jim Burns:

>> ℕ_def is what everyone else calls ℕ
>
>>> ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: ∃^ℵo m ∈ ℕ, m > n. [WM]
>>
>> ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: ∃^ℵo m ∈ ℕ_def, m > n.
>
> In this case, I'd prefer
>
> ∀ n ∈ ℕ: ∃^ℵo m ∈ ℕ: m > n.

In favor of your preference:
a randomly.selected internetter such as yourself
is likely to find that less distracting
from what's being said.

Against your preference:
WM thinks ℕ is larger than ℕ_def  and
he will look at the non.finite claims about ℕ
and claim they are caused by darkᵂᴹ numbers.
(I know what I said. He is very good at ignoring.)

A dead horse I wish to beat one more time is that
it is the finite numbers -- all of them together --
which have these non.finite properties.
I wish to fence WM's explanations from
"darkᵂᴹ numbers in bigger set"