| 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.