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: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 08:35:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6f3449f217f4825ff9b62b1da1443fc894ef8bf2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org> <vbn3eb$2em18$4@dont-email.me>
 <vbn45r$2d8fc$10@dont-email.me> <vbnfvo$2gn73$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbnuqq$2it4a$2@dont-email.me> <vbp9dk$2u3sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbq4ve$31fu6$10@dont-email.me>
 <fd09e9afa6b0c3041b90c5d788681bb2c92f9d2e@i2pn2.org>
 <vbs9v8$3l368$3@dont-email.me>
 <73f09425214bb25768fabf576b4ae5d98ef97431@i2pn2.org>
 <Iz5zSuCuwslwe6r8CqsrwF8fszk@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:35:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1776782"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <Iz5zSuCuwslwe6r8CqsrwF8fszk@jntp>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2782
Lines: 35

On 9/12/24 7:18 AM, WM wrote:
> Le 12/09/2024 à 03:00, Richard Damon a écrit :
> 
>> So, you can't "index" an unbounded set of unit fractions from 0, as 
>> there isn't a "first" unit fraction from that end.
>>
>> We can "address" those unit fractions with the value, but we can not 
>> "index" them from 0, only from 1/1.
> 
> If you can index all unit fractions, then you can index them from every 
> side.
> Fact is that NUF(x) increases from 0, but at no point it can inc4rease 
> by more than 1 because of
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0
> Regards, WM
> 
> 

Nope, that ASSUMPTION just means you can't actually have an infinite 
set, as you can't get to the upper end to let you count down.


1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 thus says that no 1/n is the smallest, as there will 
exist a 1/(n+1) that is smaller that that.

Your claim boils down to a claim that there exists some n in the Natural 
Numbers that doesn't have a next number, and thus your set of Natural 
Numbers is NOT the infinite set they are defined to be, but only some 
finite initial subsequence of the real numbers, and your logic never had 
a correct idea of infinity,

Sorry, you are just proving that you werte NEVER talking about the 
actual set of Natural Numbers, just some made up finite subset of them, 
and your "dark" numbers are just the actual existing Natural Numbers 
that you have refused to look at because you ran out of ways to count to 
them.