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: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 07:29:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <70a11fdb62b0cd34e552d39d00493a303e4cbce8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org>
 <0da78c91e9bc2e4dc5de13bd16e4037ceb8bdfd4@i2pn2.org>
 <vb57lf$2vud1$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee482f3fa7d24f1e4ae102374d1239ef82f7ba09@i2pn2.org>
 <vb6nn6$3a4m1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="702207"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vb6nn6$3a4m1$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2478
Lines: 44

On 9/3/24 6:17 AM, WM wrote:
> On 02.09.2024 23:43, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/2/24 4:37 PM, WM wrote:
> 
>> Which just shows the error in the "definition" of NUF.
> 
> There is no error.

Sure there is, that's why you can con

>>
>>>
>>>> as any unit fraction you might claim to be that one has a unit 
>>>> fraction smaller than itself, so it wasn't the smallest.
>>>
>>> Your argument stems from visible unit fractions but becomes invalid 
>>> in the dark domain.
>>
>> But all the unit fractions are visible.
> 
> All which you can see, yes. But there are many which you cannot see.
> 
>> Thus, there is no smallest visible unit fraction as there can't be a 
>> last one.
> 
> Unit fractions are fixed points on the real line which differ from each 
> other. Therefore there is a first one. It cannot be seen. Therefore 
> there are dark unit fractions.

That is not correct logic.

There are an INFINITE number of them, so there doesn't need to be a one 
closest to zero.

You just don't understand, and your logic doesn't support, the concept 
of an unbounded infinite class.

Sorry, you are just proving yourself too STUPID to understand what you 
are trying to talk about, and are using inadequacy logic that has blown 
itself, and apparently your brain, to smithereens of inconsistency.

> 
> Regards, WM
>