Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The
 non-existence of "dark numbers"]
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:12:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <61ac86e412d987360168df0f3ee8d3adca1430dd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <vrpsaa$3708j$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrpud0$po9$2@news.muc.de> <vrsb4p$1gv1d$3@dont-email.me>
	<vrsgn5$1lg8$4@news.muc.de> <vrujtd$3l4hv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrusi3$10kn$2@news.muc.de> <vrv3c4$3vgl8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vrves5$1507$1@news.muc.de> <vs1l08$2cnha$1@dont-email.me>
	<3449b34c60603bf59f694df42857003d0bda7ab5@i2pn2.org>
	<vs1o24$2c93u$2@dont-email.me> <vs1s4h$26e3$2@news.muc.de>
	<vs4blb$eulg$6@solani.org> <vs6g7b$2mp5$1@news.muc.de>
	<vsjiud$22the$1@dont-email.me> <vsmmem$v6u$1@news.muc.de>
	<vsmr1s$1fvvf$1@dont-email.me>
	<99a6fc8bceae7f4ebdb88740027d2347be94b783@i2pn2.org>
	<vtglok$36q6u$1@dont-email.me>
	<4a8e04a475f17043e6a9eee10030f07300278bb0@i2pn2.org>
	<vtit4h$16vsf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:12:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="289185"; 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 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:56:01 +0200 schrieb WM:
> On 14.04.2025 10:51, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 17:37:57 +0200 schrieb WM:
>>> On 13.04.2025 10:25, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 22:28:44 +0200 schrieb WM:
>>>>> On 03.04.2025 21:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This was proven by Cantor.  That you don't understand the proof is
>>>>>> your problem, not ours.
>>>>> I understand that you are duped. And I have explained why. Every
>>>>> pair of the bijection has almost all elements as successors.
>>>> Bijections aren’t ordered.
>>> Bijections with well-ordered sets are well ordered.
>> You can do that, but what does it buy you? It would be infinite even
>> without an order. It’s not necessary for your argument.
> Order is necessary to convince intelligent readers that almost all terms
> are successors of any defined term.
You could just say that the bijection is between infinite sets. Then your
claim boils down to „those don’t exist”, which you haven’t provided any
reasoning for.

>>>>> Only definite positions are admitted. No evasion into the infinite.
>>>> Then you cannot talk about the limit.
>>> There is none.
>> Dude, you are talking about the result of an infinite process. Are you
>> saying it diverges?
> It is claimed by Cantor that all pairs of the bijection exist at defined
> places without limit.
So? What do you claim?

-- 
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.