Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:58:29 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d9db7b4c0bb13dcf9babbcb95eb004365b02d196@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>
	<578344c0-4d58-4dcb-8a89-988e3e60f9d7@att.net>
	<vr7ivf$2jj8r$3@dont-email.me>
	<3a9f34ab-c270-4dfc-b23c-14741b68875b@att.net>
	<vr8a53$3dsos$1@dont-email.me>
	<3af4ba5e-63c6-4145-966c-67c832e127bc@att.net> <vr9him$bvhg$1@dont-email.me>
	<fc1d5825-1d93-4ac8-a6e4-e513cfce213a@att.net>
	<vrbcnf$23ker$2@dont-email.me>
	<ae5edd89-d5da-4ff4-a723-485cafa92582@att.net>
	<vrc8n0$2og7i$2@dont-email.me>
	<0b8644b2-7027-420e-b187-8214daaf9e3b@att.net>
	<vrf5bp$1gcun$1@dont-email.me>
	<b3730bf7-bcd1-4698-b465-6d6ef190b29d@att.net>
	<vrgm1k$2s8c6$2@dont-email.me>
	<c81100d7-9354-4c8e-b216-e147cab9b41c@att.net>
	<vrhrlb$3ta8t$1@dont-email.me>
	<c0de7504-7d17-42f1-83e8-8767c0859c0c@att.net>
	<vrj5nh$12273$1@dont-email.me>
	<efbe60c5-6691-4fd6-8638-589fd95ec8a4@att.net>
	<vrkabi$233at$1@dont-email.me>
	<f32ed217-7f7d-4e03-8a10-58fc26cbbb50@att.net>
	<vrlvah$3khef$1@dont-email.me>
	<555d7095-81a0-4576-adac-f2aa8327f4df@att.net>
	<vrpg35$2q4gr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 00:58:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1476952"; 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

Am Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:23:49 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 22.03.2025 20:33, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 3/22/2025 5:19 AM, WM wrote:
> 
>>> It is infinite but nevertheless obeys the logic of lossless exchanges
>>> do not suffer losses.
>> Infinite sets don't need to obey the logic of lossless exchanges do not
>> suffer losses.
> Every set does because the claim concerns always only one finite term:
> One single exchange.
Exactly. It does not concern the result, the limit.

> The loss, if happened, had to happe at a finite index.
Uh no, then we wouldn't have an infinite sequence. It is your perennial
failure to conceptualise the infinite as something after every and all
finite indices.

>>> The reason is that all pairs of the bijection proving same cardinality
>>> have infinitely many dark successors which cannot be bijected.
>> A bijection which does not biject everything is not a bijection,
> So it is! But it is impossible to prove everything in Cantor's
> bijections. Almost all elements follow upon every defined pair.
....which are bijected just the same. Why should that change?

-- 
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.