| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<b01b789a7a76a3c9e6f04b3dd21a4240c948a41a@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: sci.logic Subject: Re: Replacement of Cardinality Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:12:39 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <b01b789a7a76a3c9e6f04b3dd21a4240c948a41a@i2pn2.org> References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp> <11698e94cb8361b62f1686b64d6351a9720d4d3d@i2pn2.org> <nhZZyv1rDmL90pLuaDma-8md3qw@jntp> <1b259a91952c93a56ad1e0063a2d7440aed185f2@i2pn2.org> <rHIaB-dFODVqSY7-aRnf4ItTyG0@jntp> <20e0e340532aa10bcc86e51eb5d19d006acefb12@i2pn2.org> <el_h_RPLN1ZVr_KeaLK-R-0CPpY@jntp> <4d0ca88a910435926e85285b6a88fffe21ff9778@i2pn2.org> <kSBZ7VBqP15t7BtV3nwl-HtGQYU@jntp> <5e690acdc28e7c22a458009b39e05884bf102602@i2pn2.org> <erHxj1xRsTUe3t7HCOW4hOQUukk@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:12:40 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1215790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <erHxj1xRsTUe3t7HCOW4hOQUukk@jntp> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2297 Lines: 29 On 8/2/24 12:42 PM, WM wrote: > Le 02/08/2024 à 18:12, Richard Damon a écrit : >> On 8/2/24 11:09 AM, WM wrote: > >>> There are infinitely many by the definition of accumulation point. >>> You cannot find them. Therefore they are dark. >> >> Nope, we can find any one of them we want. > > But you cannot want any one Why not? >> >> Again, you are changing the conditional incorrectly because you logic >> can't handle unbounded values. > > What you want is bounded. The set of all eps you ever choose is finite. > You will never separate infinitely many unit fractions. > > Regards, WM Nope, Maybe YOU are the one that is limited. Numbers are not limited by us, but we might be limited by numbers. The Numbers are not limited by the numbers we happen to choose, since we are not limited to choosing numbers that have already been choosen. This is just the flaw in your logic.