Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit
 fractions?
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 00:36:51 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vbdbq3$gdoe$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org>
 <0da78c91e9bc2e4dc5de13bd16e4037ceb8bdfd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vb57lf$2vud1$1@dont-email.me> <5d8b4ac0-3060-40df-8534-3e04bb77c12d@att.net>
 <vb6o0r$3a4m1$2@dont-email.me> <7e1e3f62-1fba-4484-8e34-6ff8f1e54625@att.net>
 <vbabbm$24a94$1@solani.org> <06ee7920-eff2-4687-be98-67a89b301c93@att.net>
 <38ypmjbnu3EfnKYR4tSIu-WavbA@jntp>
 <34e11216-439f-4b11-bdff-1a252ac98f8f@att.net> <vbd56i$fqa0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:36:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a90eca15f7c0e50fc2ed6d3a6c1feb3";
	logging-data="538382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/O/Sneru731elExRuTEyjt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RJvm8s1F518MQu1Dm5kbT2Fj8Ag=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbd56i$fqa0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2547

Le 05/09/2024 à 22:44, crank Wolfgang Mückenheim, aka WM a écrit :
> On 05.09.2024 20:56, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 9/5/2024 9:53 AM, WM wrote:
> 
>> Insisting that ω-1 exists and that,
>> for b ≠ 0 and β < ω, β-1 exists
>> is
>> insisting that ω is finite.
> 
> No.
>>
>> The most frugal explanation of your claim is that
>> you simply do not know what 'finite' means.
> 
> Finite means that you can count from one end to the other. Infinite 
> means that it is impossible to count from one end to the other.
> 
>>> Do you believe that it needs a shift to state:
>>> All different unit fractions are different.
>>> ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0
>>> I can see no shift.
>>
>> It needs a shift to conclude from
>> ( for each ⅟j: there is ⅟k≠⅟j: ⅟k < ⅟j
>> that
>> ( there is ⅟k: for each ⅟j≠⅟k: ⅟k < ⅟j
>>
>> Have you evolved on that topic?
> 
> You are mistaken. I do not conclude the latter from the former. I 
> conclude the latter from the fact that NUF(0) = 0 and NUF(x>0) > 0 and 
> never, at no x, NUF can increase by more than 1.

What the Hell could mean "to increase at an x" ?