Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<4e90ab7018a56a1793f4f7731e9c0ff4c1195cc5@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Replacement of Cardinality
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:22:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4e90ab7018a56a1793f4f7731e9c0ff4c1195cc5@i2pn2.org>
References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp>
 <sglIw8p3PCeHivaAhg-7IVZCN4A@jntp>
 <fcd3f5f1-fd6e-44ac-823d-fa567d5fb9ba@att.net>
 <t_rVz7RU7M3aHZTB1TQJS59Ez0I@jntp>
 <45ad1007-b1a7-49d0-a650-048f02738226@att.net> <v9lc9n$10teg$3@dont-email.me>
 <UMzq2D4JrBFmHiWT8a6U533RZeg@jntp>
 <3dde285520d8f3e937d9bdc360a8a61567bd64f5@i2pn2.org>
 <c_WQK7_OAZCaIBbSC9Ri47uN0Yg@jntp>
 <579df9e764dbdafb44609f468567ac1d3bc0fae5@i2pn2.org>
 <4GqbdPgQFufkHzlrwEvNxZvwBjw@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 14:22:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2897736"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4GqbdPgQFufkHzlrwEvNxZvwBjw@jntp>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2263
Lines: 21

On 8/17/24 9:37 AM, WM wrote:
> Le 16/08/2024 à 20:11, joes a écrit :
>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:59:11 +0000 schrieb WM:
> 
>>>> It does not diminish, there are always infinitely many.
>>> Not according to mathematics: ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 .
>> I don't see the connection.
> 
> NUF(x) grows from 0 to more, but at no point it grows by more than 1.
> 
> Regards, WM

And there is "no point" that is smaller than all unit fractions but 
greater than 0, so at that point NUF(x) jumps from 0 to Aleph_0.

Your problem is NUF(x) may have a clear verbal description, but not a 
mathematical one, as it is based on a false assumption that there exists 
a smallest unit fraction. Thus, you argument is you try to "prove" there 
is a smallest unit fraction, using assumng a function that only exists 
if there is a smallest unit fraction.

Sorry, your logic, and your brain, has exploded based on contradictions.