Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: 2N=E
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:55:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d76e020d7e690a7a993014bc977b979186b70da6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org> <vfgqa8$39o4h$1@dont-email.me>
	<a45b5e62-4b8c-4428-83ef-8b9bf62d6981@att.net> <vfj3e9$1e96h$1@solani.org>
	<40b398d1-40c5-45e9-8615-1cf437af0185@att.net>
	<vfoqi1$14lcd$6@dont-email.me>
	<3537899e-e951-4138-b56c-fc76340762b8@att.net>
	<vftj9t$26ql2$1@dont-email.me>
	<8b31df46-1361-4dd1-aed3-1f42039af960@att.net>
	<vfu2qi$29m4j$2@dont-email.me>
	<84c1bb5d-67db-4d21-918a-f86cd1f815c5@att.net> <vfvefj$9264$2@solani.org>
	<ca84d22c-3684-4744-a145-a941bac4651f@att.net>
	<vg0iba$2q8fo$1@dont-email.me>
	<c2087013-5e5c-4e01-b356-29ffa484bfc2@att.net>
	<vg0p6j$2ra8e$1@dont-email.me> <vg0u81$2s8he$1@dont-email.me>
	<vg29sb$36ojr$3@dont-email.me> <vg2cb1$379th$1@dont-email.me>
	<vg2eqf$36ojq$9@dont-email.me> <vg2i33$38a2j$1@dont-email.me>
	<vg31uv$3b2rd$1@dont-email.me>
	<a3f1a8c045d260ea779c538c2f5a360631cb7d64@i2pn2.org>
	<vg5n8t$3sb7d$4@dont-email.me>
	<a4609d595975de654c01758fba3906e7cea16285@i2pn2.org>
	<vg7oe0$9ma8$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2024 15:55:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="721431"; 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: 2356
Lines: 12

Am Sun, 03 Nov 2024 12:56:48 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 03.11.2024 09:50, joes wrote:
>> pparently you do think that there is a natural n such that 2^n is
>> infinite.
> If all naturals are there, then no further one is available. But
> doubling all yields a greater number than all.
> In actual infinity there is no way to avoid this.
We don't need any further ones because we ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THEM,
even including the doubles.

-- 
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.