Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9e0c7e728f7de44e13450d7401fe65d36c5638f3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>
	<ae5edd89-d5da-4ff4-a723-485cafa92582@att.net>
	<vrc8n0$2og7i$2@dont-email.me>
	<0b8644b2-7027-420e-b187-8214daaf9e3b@att.net>
	<vrf5bp$1gcun$1@dont-email.me>
	<b3730bf7-bcd1-4698-b465-6d6ef190b29d@att.net>
	<vrgm1k$2s8c6$2@dont-email.me>
	<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> <vrkca8$18dh$1@news.muc.de>
	<vrlt7r$3hfcp$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:31:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1253450"; 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
Bytes: 3107
Lines: 32

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:43:39 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 21.03.2025 19:48, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>>> On 21.03.2025 18:39, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2025 3:50 AM, WM wrote:
>>>>> On 20.03.2025 23:25, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> For sets not.having a WM.size, Bob vanishing isn't a size.change.
>>>>> Only if reducing isn't reducing.
>>>> What you (WM) think is reducing isn't reducing.
>>> You confuse the clear fact that in the reality of sets vanishing means
>>> reducing with the foolish claim that cardinality was a meaningful
>>> notion.
>>> Learn that even Cantor has accepted that the positive numbers have
>>> more reality than the even positive numbers.
>> You mean something like positive numbers have a reality score of 5, and
>> the even positive numbers only have a reality score of 3?
> No, The number of positive numbers is |ℕ|. The number of even natural
> numbers is |ℕ|/2. It needs really years of brainwashing to honestly
> believe that addition of a number or subset leaves the number of
> elements unchanged. It leaves the cardinality unchanged because this
> notion is tantamount to potential infinity.
Aaand those numbers are equally infinite. You just never learned that
for infinite sets "reality" and cardinality don't have to correspond.

>  >> "Coun[t]able" is simply another name for potential infinity.
>  > Not even close.
> You are simply unable to follow reasonable ideas.
"Countable" means finite or bijective to N.

-- 
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.