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: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:58:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5355732a3f22baa4483b5718dd1c74f90362f653@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>
	<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>
	<555d7095-81a0-4576-adac-f2aa8327f4df@att.net>
	<vrpg35$2q4gr$1@dont-email.me>
	<8397e10f-36cb-43c6-8d2b-e4d20809ee83@att.net>
	<vrpo4r$3002f$3@dont-email.me>
	<4b83f1c2-c16f-40b4-a5b6-68991e3c230c@att.net>
	<vrsc49$1gv1c$2@dont-email.me>
	<440ff556-a769-482e-ad2a-064af14c5781@att.net>
	<vrulap$3l4i0$2@dont-email.me>
	<369e62e9-93e6-4256-96ed-f9d8489aa017@att.net>
	<vrv307$3vgl7$4@dont-email.me>
	<5004d400-7c2e-4d59-ad66-5986a416ef89@att.net> <vrv9oe$8plq$3@dont-email.me>
	<411d5c64-ddb6-4655-a264-2149d054ff7d@att.net>
	<vs1hhj$2bn9k$1@dont-email.me>
	<94fa0364396567adcb4e87213ba7392c45ed8a1d@i2pn2.org>
	<vs1msv$2c93u$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:58:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1960035"; 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 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:09:03 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 26.03.2025 20:59, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:37:40 +0100 schrieb WM:
>>> On 26.03.2025 07:24, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 6:12 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>> On 25.03.2025 21:26, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 4:17 PM, WM wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25.03.2025 18:46, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the same way in which we know that a square has four corners
>>>>>>> and that losslvvess exchanges are lossless.
>>>>>> and that a set larger than any set different.sized.by.one from
>>>>>> other sets is not any set different.sized.by.one from other sets.
>>>>> Irrelevant. Your waffle does not change basic logic.
>>>> A set larger than any set for which my waffle does not change basic
>>>> WM.logic is a set for which my waffle changes basic WM.logic.
>>> Nothing of that kind does exist. "WM-logic" says that lossless
>>> exchanges at finite steps are lossless and is the foundation of
>>> rational thinking.
>> At finite steps, but not in the limit.
> Countability is proved without limits. Bijections are one-to-one without
> limit.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What can be proved to be
countable without resorting to limits? I didn't say anything about
bijections not being one-to-one, nor about them having limits???
The transformation from the initial to the final matrix can not be
achieved in finitely many steps.

-- 
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.