Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:40:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <404068ec9a0f7e53dda4f6424d84dd6eebd197d9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>
	<578344c0-4d58-4dcb-8a89-988e3e60f9d7@att.net>
	<vr7ivf$2jj8r$3@dont-email.me>
	<3a9f34ab-c270-4dfc-b23c-14741b68875b@att.net>
	<vr8a53$3dsos$1@dont-email.me>
	<3af4ba5e-63c6-4145-966c-67c832e127bc@att.net> <vr9him$bvhg$1@dont-email.me>
	<fc1d5825-1d93-4ac8-a6e4-e513cfce213a@att.net>
	<vrbcnf$23ker$2@dont-email.me>
	<ae5edd89-d5da-4ff4-a723-485cafa92582@att.net>
	<vrc8n0$2og7i$2@dont-email.me>
	<0b8644b2-7027-420e-b187-8214daaf9e3b@att.net>
	<vrf5bp$1gcun$1@dont-email.me>
	<b3730bf7-bcd1-4698-b465-6d6ef190b29d@att.net>
	<vrgm1k$2s8c6$2@dont-email.me>
	<c81100d7-9354-4c8e-b216-e147cab9b41c@att.net>
	<vrhrlb$3ta8t$1@dont-email.me>
	<c0de7504-7d17-42f1-83e8-8767c0859c0c@att.net>
	<vrj5nh$12273$1@dont-email.me>
	<efbe60c5-6691-4fd6-8638-589fd95ec8a4@att.net>
	<vrkabi$233at$1@dont-email.me>
	<f32ed217-7f7d-4e03-8a10-58fc26cbbb50@att.net>
	<vrlvah$3khef$1@dont-email.me>
	<8769154367e9c107310b7538f4c8b58a1d6042cd@i2pn2.org>
	<vrpog8$3002f$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:40:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1476952"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 20:47:19 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 22.03.2025 12:14, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:19:13 +0100 schrieb WM:
> 
>> That a superset contains elements the subset doesn't is trivial.
>> Whatever your intuition about "number of elements", it isn't
>> cardinality.
> It is not intuition but maths, and it isn't cardinality.
(Cardinality is maths.)

>>> Of course. The reason is that all pairs of the bijection proving same
>>> cardinality have infinitely many dark successors which cannot be
>>> bijected.
>> That's bullshit. Bijections are "complete".
> They should be complete. But complete bijecions are easily prove as
> such: They are injective for every surjection. Cantor's "bijections"
> fail to stad this test.
Right, I forgot you don't believe in bijections. I don't understand
what you mean by that test. Can you explain?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.