Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simple enough for every reader?
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 14:58:02 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <101hf8a$22mhj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100a8ah$ekoh$1@dont-email.me> <878qmt1qz6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100fu5r$1oqf5$1@dont-email.me> <87plg4yujh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100ho1d$272si$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwizrrj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100kbsj$2q30f$1@dont-email.me> <874ixbxy26.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100s897$lkp7$1@dont-email.me> <87r00dv5s4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <100ukdf$19g96$1@dont-email.me> <87ldqkura6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1011f3m$1uskr$1@dont-email.me> <1011gn8$1vbtj$1@dont-email.me> <1011r74$20v83$2@dont-email.me> <1014b3q$2k7is$1@dont-email.me> <1014lg2$2l9jj$6@dont-email.me> <1019chq$3qkog$1@dont-email.me> <1019sbs$3sv8u$4@dont-email.me> <101bv2f$dvr0$1@dont-email.me> <101cgcu$gl20$3@dont-email.me> <101ekjv$12fvb$1@dont-email.me> <101f1a6$14b34$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 13:58:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a18a6334ca0a95a791852dd21504e21b";
	logging-data="2185779"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wMrdc36m/OkljZOddZB9E"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9yNrFbcy2/kmQt3DqQpntMGbFE=
Bytes: 2262

On 2025-05-31 13:47:51 +0000, WM said:

> On 31.05.2025 12:11, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-30 14:46:55 +0000, WM said:
>> 
> 
>>>>> {1, 2, 3, ..., n, n+1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors is a 
>>>>> consequence of {1, 2, 3, ..., n} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors, 
>>>>> and ℵo - 1 = ℵo.
>>>> 
>>>> Still no proof.
>>> 
>>> Proof that every definable natural number has more successors than 
>>> predecessors.
>> 
>> You have not shown that proof, either.
> 
> I have above. You cannot understand it. That is a different thing.

No proof of anything above. Besides, nothing that requires any
understanding beyond ordinary proof checking cannot be a proof.

-- 
Mikko