Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 11:59:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e12da78fd53e95ae8b54c4b0f100c10542acfa1a@i2pn2.org>
References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp>
 <cec0225a1e6ec21e1bca57b37fff99612e4505c4@i2pn2.org>
 <8G0IFYrPqHdBEH1pzbz9ifVRvd0@jntp>
 <11698e94cb8361b62f1686b64d6351a9720d4d3d@i2pn2.org>
 <nhZZyv1rDmL90pLuaDma-8md3qw@jntp>
 <1b259a91952c93a56ad1e0063a2d7440aed185f2@i2pn2.org>
 <rHIaB-dFODVqSY7-aRnf4ItTyG0@jntp>
 <20e0e340532aa10bcc86e51eb5d19d006acefb12@i2pn2.org>
 <el_h_RPLN1ZVr_KeaLK-R-0CPpY@jntp>
 <411a6d693f5dac5ec7cf51a239a9570ac5ce7bd4@i2pn2.org>
 <9ynqddb0aIxRIgzLd8YZuWqFJQQ@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:59:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1215791"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9ynqddb0aIxRIgzLd8YZuWqFJQQ@jntp>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2828
Lines: 54

On 8/2/24 7:38 AM, WM wrote:
> Le 01/08/2024 à 18:04, joes a écrit :
>> Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 12:27:27 +0000 schrieb WM:
> 
>>> separated from 0 by any eps. Therefore your claim is wrong.
>> No. There is ALWAYS an epsilon.
> 
> Failing to separate almost all unit fractions.
> Don't claim the contrary. Define (separate by an eps from 0) all unit 
> fractions. Fail.
>>

Improperly revesing the conditionals.

>>> What is the reason for the gap before omega? How large is it? Are these
>>> questions a blasphemy?
>> A "gap" implies some sort of space that is not filled. There is no such
>> space (it would be filled with infinitely many natural numbers).
> 
> Hence there is only the sequence of natnumbers.

Nope, just proof of the ignorance of WM.

> 
>> We just condense the whole of N into one concept and call that omega,
> 
> That is nonsense. ω is the first number following upon all natural numbers.

No, it is the first TRANSFINITE number beyond all the natural numbers, 
one which has no predicesors.

> 
>> or add it on the next level of infinity.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> Your questions are only a display of your unwillingness to understand
>> infinity,
> 
> They  prove that I understand the real infinity while are (con)fusing 
> potential and actual infinity.

Nope, just that you use broken logic,

> 
>> If k did not have a successor, what would k+1 be?
> 
> ω
> 
> Regards, WM
> 
> 
> 
>