Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 22:03:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d440748d318da3641f835b377e09e40a34e9736d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vmo1bs$1rnl$1@dont-email.me> <vpmvg3$2i1ev$1@dont-email.me>
 <558a879a-4130-476a-8b5d-d53cd371919b@att.net> <vppfol$3280b$1@dont-email.me>
 <04dd7515-297c-4e7c-9e6a-a4f43e663552@att.net> <vpqflj$38bst$2@dont-email.me>
 <43c020cb-dc8b-4feb-be1d-2a76f02be14e@att.net> <vpqnbk$39ff1$2@dont-email.me>
 <19431656-fb42-4569-9334-b5b7e19c80c6@att.net> <vpruld$3jg6j$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b45ff34-dc3f-4e32-90a3-237f78fbd321@att.net> <vpsqb1$3mn6v$5@dont-email.me>
 <2e5bced50a3571e40311d75977f0880db77fe5a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vpusp4$721i$2@dont-email.me>
 <630f69206a09e08bc68b59cc1f95aac5e8a0f84b@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvj2c$asqp$1@dont-email.me>
 <b8eb097a0e284c197f4f563cf555ce7d32db3f42@i2pn2.org>
 <vq26ko$sefa$1@dont-email.me>
 <88e790cc59217e199ea7419268fa49a598a0df8b@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3rmr$185rq$2@dont-email.me>
 <b2474d0cdfefa51cff6d2fde01314ee546b3e031@i2pn2.org>
 <vq6fsv$1ps4v$2@dont-email.me>
 <e2ccc7a24320def6fe63b68875563b7c1f880de5@i2pn2.org>
 <vqaea2$2j8tk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 02:03:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4024553"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vqaea2$2j8tk$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4721
Lines: 77

On 3/5/25 4:05 PM, WM wrote:
> Am 05.03.2025 um 13:25 schrieb Richard Damon:
>> On 3/4/25 4:07 AM, WM wrote:
> 
>> Wrong, Cantor shows that the number of Natural Numbers generated by 
>> the iterative method of, we have 0, and for every number we have its 
>> successor, is not one of those finite numbers, but is another number 
>> Aleph0
> 
> Below you contradict yourself.

Where?

> 
>>>>> We call that phenomenon potential infinity.
>>>>
>>>> WHich is just infinity,
>>>
>>> Cantor denies your claim.
>>> "Nevertheless the transfinite cannot be considered a subsection of 
>>> what is usually called 'potentially infinite'. Because the latter is 
>>> not (like every individual transfinite and in general everything due 
>>> to an 'idea divina') determined in itself, fixed, and unchangeable, 
>>> but a finite in the process of change, having in each of its current 
>>> states a finite size; like, for instance, the temporal duration since 
>>> the beginning of the world, which, when measured in some time-unit, 
>>> for instance a year, is finite in every moment, but always growing 
>>> beyond all finite limits, without ever becoming really infinitely 
>>> large." [G. Cantor, letter to I. Jeiler (13 Oct 1895)]
>>> Here he is right.
>>
>> Which doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> He means what he says.

Right, the "Transfinite" (the numbers beyond the finite) are not members 
of the finite, the numbers used to count up towards infinity.

>>
>> He is pointing out that these "transfinite" concepts aren't part of 
>> the infinite set built by iteration (the "potential infinity") but is 
>> beyond it.
> 
> Therefore iterartion fails to produce actual infinity.

Where do you get that? The memeber of the set we iterate in are all 
finite, but the resultant set is infinite itself.

>>
>> We SEE the "potentially infinite" via a process, where each step is 
>> finite, but the final result of it *IS* an infinite thing.
> 
> There is no final result. You are unable to understand infinity.

Sure there is, it is the set of the Natural Numbers.

You just can't limit your logic to logic that requires creating things 
by finite work to work on a infinite set.

> 
> Because the latter is a finite in the process of change, having in each 
> of its current without ever becoming really infinitely large.

No, it is an infinitely long process of change, that none of the number 
created are ever not finite, but the full set is.

>>
>> None of the members of N are themselves infinite, but the set itself is.
> 
> Not by recursion or induction! Therefore UF is a proper subset of ℕ.
> UF = ℕ  ==> Ø = ℕ
> 

Nope, because you defined your UF to be an INFINTE union of FISONS that 
made up the Natural Numbers.

> Regards, WM