| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<ab5f2732ee2d6b6eccf5ef4941d098acd27c3d7c@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Replacement of Cardinality Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:39:00 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <ab5f2732ee2d6b6eccf5ef4941d098acd27c3d7c@i2pn2.org> References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp> <cB1y4KsEseyrfvMXAJJ2TijMcX4@jntp> <va31ko$3havl$1@dont-email.me> <VqqLFKi62z9rl82Gg4Mxsdp4YYg@jntp> <va4h96$3r7nv$1@dont-email.me> <H5iV5HXUBwUzWtVKRZj7h4N2LdA@jntp> <ff390a80279179f6d2f4660ed19c150a88c787d6@i2pn2.org> <va4rcm$3soiv$1@dont-email.me> <maptLlB5uFyelg509mbdgWw1yGc@jntp> <980a0ec7476c9dc5823e59b2969398bd39d9b91d@i2pn2.org> <_lFM72wVqiPQLxO8Gf0IkBJtFhw@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:39:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3438386"; 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: 2106 Lines: 17 Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:09:13 +0000 schrieb WM: > Le 21/08/2024 à 20:15, joes a écrit : >> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:53:27 +0000 schrieb WM: >>> Le 21/08/2024 à 15:51, Moebius a écrit : >>>> Am 21.08.2024 um 15:13 schrieb joes: >>>>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:24:14 +0000 schrieb WM: >>>> >>>>>> Since no unit fraction is below or at zero, the end is before. >>>> Since there is no smallest unit fraction, there is no end. >>> The other way round. There is an end, because at and below zero there >>> is no unit fraction. Therefore there is an end before. Simple as that. >> Stupid as this: „There is a last negative power of 2.” > *If there is a complete chain*, then it has a last member. What do you mean by „complete”? -- 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.