Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Simple enough for every reader?
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 16:05:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <100dp4f$17tla$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100a8cr$ekoh$2@dont-email.me> <100agh5$317i$1@news.muc.de>
 <100ahdf$gdh7$1@dont-email.me> <100alfa$h8lo$1@dont-email.me>
 <100amo0$hjsf$1@dont-email.me> <100bu7m$s26m$2@dont-email.me>
 <100buld$s26m$3@dont-email.me> <100cuds$11tii$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 01:05:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72c280426359b7d9ce8d6f0ead9d885e";
	logging-data="1308330"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UcJNYRq6TKia9HRtOpN4kG+GpIbZMoJA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bdPJ12ReWEa5WGZ561dadjhParU=
In-Reply-To: <100cuds$11tii$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3125

On 5/18/2025 8:30 AM, WM wrote:
> On 18.05.2025 08:27, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 5/17/2025 11:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 5/17/2025 12:06 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> After serious thinking Chris M. Thomasson wrote :
>>>>> On 5/17/2025 10:35 AM, WM wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Exciting. Many readers claim(ed) that all natural numbers could be 
>>>>>> used as individuals. Further this would be a precondition for 
>>>>>> countability of infinite sets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me a dark natural number?
> 
> Take the greatest number that you can express. All greater numbers are 
> dark yet. Double your greatest number and express the result. Then you 
> see a hitherto dark number. Of course it is no longer dark. But 
> infinitely many numbers remain dark
> 
>>> We are building a natural number digit by digit using random rolls, 
>>> the first roll needs to be higher that zero... Fair enough? They will 
>>> all be natural numbers, right?
> 
> Of course. All will be natural numbers. It is a potentially infinite 
> set, {1, 2, 3, ..., n}, always finite but without a upper bound, 
> followed by an infinite set of dark numbers, infinitely many of which 
> will remain dark forever.
>>
>> So, how could my process "break" when the natural numbers are infinite 
>> any at any step of the process,
> 
> Your process will not break. One after one the dark numbers will become 
> visible. Nevertheless almost all natural numbers will remain dark. The 
> stock is incredibly large. There are numbers like ω/2 or ω/10 which you 
> will never touch. For every defined n ∈ ℕ: ω/n is larger than you will 
> every reach, how long ever you will increase your visible numbers. 
> Compared to ω the defined numbers are infinitesimal.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 

So, you say wrt a little kid in the womb, well, perhaps all numbers are 
dark?