Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:52:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d7b52b84106c40422c61dd52c60177d859a2f701@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <vr1hig$5qt$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr29g3$23fi7$3@dont-email.me> <vr2d3k$jli$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr3fbu$1gbs1$3@solani.org> <vr3pvd$20r1$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr4cgl$3qbcs$3@dont-email.me> <vr6fgl$1uok$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr6tit$21dt9$1@dont-email.me> <vr71ea$qjf$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr774e$2a6rj$2@dont-email.me> <vr7b30$qjf$2@news.muc.de>
	<vr7jql$2jj8r$4@dont-email.me> <vr92l8$1pc1$1@news.muc.de>
	<vr9gla$bvhh$1@dont-email.me> <vrbn3b$2d16$1@news.muc.de>
	<vrc3ps$2og7j$1@dont-email.me> <vrc64d$219n$1@news.muc.de>
	<vrc70k$2og7j$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:52:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="748200"; 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: 3190
Lines: 38

Am Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:29:08 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 18.03.2025 17:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>>> On 18.03.2025 12:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> The set of FISONs is an inductive set. But it is not ℕ because ∀n ∈
>>>>> UF: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
>>>> That "because" doesn't hold
>>> Because you say so? That's not significant.
>> There's no connection between the bit before the because and the bit
>> afterwards.  You're the one who's lacking a degree in maths,
> No.
Headline please?

>> not me, and it shows
> that degrees are not guaranteeing the ability to think mathematically.
Indeed.

>>> it is decisive: ℕ_def contains all numbers the subtraction of which
>>> from ℕ does not result in the empty set. Obviously the subtraction of
>>> all numbers which cannot empty ℕ cannot empty ℕ.
>> I've told you and explained to you, I don't know how many times, that
>> that is ill-conceived meaningless gibberish.
> Can you imagine a natural number that when subtracted from ℕ does not
> empty ℕ? Here are some examples: 2, 5, 17. More are available.
This is so stupid. OF COURSE N contains more than one element.

> Can you imagine a set of natural numbers that when subtracted from ℕ
> does not empty ℕ? Here are some examples: {4, 9}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. More
> are vailable.
> Now imagine all FISONs. None empties ℕ when applied one after the other.
Hold on. No single one or no FISON of them? Not that it changes anything.

> Could that change when all are applied together?
Yup. Why shouldn't it?
-- 
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.