Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Does the number of nines increase?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:01:49 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5n8c3$3gth7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <tJf9P9dALSN4l2XH5vdqPbXSA7o@jntp> <4RWgJcGMg1Zagk6yT04mcwxdZH4@jntp> <59961718-bd36-46df-801a-4f977fcc05cf@att.net> <v5hnrl$29b21$3@dont-email.me> <a21eede6-2b9f-44f0-8732-32bd92700dfb@att.net> <eZZGYbe53s6yBDBqGuTMM_Z1y7A@jntp> <v5lspm$1bs52$2@i2pn2.org> <HlcnRXFQ42qMfnJgEw40TN7tXjI@jntp> <v5mriv$1d3t3$7@i2pn2.org> <v5msu8$3ena6$1@dont-email.me> <7kWvquYAIwnpmJER42BML2v7650@jntp>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 23:01:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d465d5712b7a445b99a4f2e83a16af77";
	logging-data="3700263"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190rfNFLVYxPdd1CSXp5905CvKLByOiePw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BJOZuXDMKyua6zLsF7hqU2E4FMQ=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 2347

WM pretended :
> Le 28/06/2024 à 19:46, FromTheRafters a écrit :
>> joes was thinking very hard :
>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:55:34 +0000 schrieb WM:
>
>>>>> What does „complete” mean?
>>>> It means that no natural number can be added to {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., ω}
>>> Duh, the set of all natural numbers N contains all of them.
>
>>>>> With which numbers do you describe the sizes of N and N_0?
>>>> Most of them are dark and cannot be used as individuals.
>>> Not their elements. I was asking for their number, how many
>>> of them there are.
>> 
>> There's a number of them, however, how many there are is not a number.
>
> Either there is a complete and fixed set ℕ with a fixed number |ℕ| of 
> elements.
> If so, then 0.999...*10 = 9,999... where the number of nines has not changed 
> by more than 0.
> Or this is not the case.
> But assuming completeness and simultaneously claiming different numbers of 
> nines is stupid.

The number of nines is not a number.