Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Simple enough for every reader?
Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 12:47:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <100usg1$1b4dh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100a8cr$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>
 <100dp4f$17tla$1@dont-email.me> <100g0cp$1oqf5$3@dont-email.me>
 <100od06$3niv7$1@dont-email.me> <100pbua$gao$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qk5f$8au7$1@dont-email.me> <100sbe1$lkp7$3@dont-email.me>
 <g5-dndytMaU2Qqz1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 12:47:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c10a542707540345c2761a2362bd7e67";
	logging-data="1413553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/i0HGkJYiKRLRIxkE+v+i+IkeIHWGwH+Y="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FV7cAIPf6AY4ZXdTzQYlsbTjZog=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <g5-dndytMaU2Qqz1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 2493

On 24.05.2025 17:03, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/24/2025 04:44 AM, WM wrote:

>> Here is a proof, pure mathematics:
>> {1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors.
>> If {1, 2, 3, ..., n} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors, then {1, 2, 3,
>> ..., n, n+1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors. For every n that can
>> be defined.
> 
> No, that's not relevance logic, you have just stipulated.

I have proved by induction. One of the basic proof methods for infinite 
sets.

> I suppose you're saying infinite sets are inexhaustible
> by finite induction, ..., which is a very classical consideration.

It is obvious, but set theorists claim that every natural number can be 
chosen as an individual. That is wrong.

> Also you'd want to pick another word since "dark" gets
> involved in ethnic discrimination,

That is not a discrimination but a description of reality. There is no 
reason to avoid words like white, black, yellow, red or brown.

Regards, WM

Regards, WM