Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit
 fractions?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:47:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4a8a61d06487925f659164df680ed247cbe2560a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org> <vdpbuv$alvo$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c94a117d7ddaba3e7858116dc5bc7c66a46c405@i2pn2.org>
 <vdqttc$mnhd$1@dont-email.me> <vdr1g3$n3li$6@dont-email.me>
 <8ce3fac3a0c92d85c72fec966d424548baebe5af@i2pn2.org>
 <vdrd5q$sn2$2@news.muc.de>
 <55cbb075e2f793e3c52f55af73c82c61d2ce8d44@i2pn2.org>
 <vdrgka$sn2$3@news.muc.de> <vds38v$1ih6$6@solani.org>
 <vdscnj$235p$1@news.muc.de> <vdtt15$16hg6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vdu54i$271t$1@news.muc.de> <vduata$19d4m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vduf0m$1tif$1@news.muc.de> <ve076s$1kopi$2@dont-email.me>
 <9402bbc384ade20d6fafc9ff0534e7c6f5ae4581@i2pn2.org>
 <ve32h9$24f8f$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 13:47:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1114622"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ve32h9$24f8f$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2306
Lines: 20

On 10/8/24 6:46 AM, WM wrote:
> On 07.10.2024 17:10, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 07 Oct 2024 10:47:25 +0200 schrieb WM:
> 
>>> The set varies but infinitely many elements remain the same. A shrinking
>>> infinite set which remains infinite has an infinite core.
>> Here is your essential misunderstanding: there is no mysterious Something
>> that makes a set infinite. It is infinite because it is not finite, has
>> no natural number as its size.
> 
> Why has it no such number? Because infinitely many natural numbers are 
> contained. This is true for all infinite sets of the function. Therefore 
> they cannot have lost all numbers.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 
> 

Because finite is not infinite.

Your logic is just based on contradictions.