Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<uvnnq2$1efc8$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: how
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:47:41 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <uvnnq2$1efc8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp> <44eaef1b-35be-4b50-900b-52b010ba9aa0@att.net> <_g9BcdiKQ1epFrcvM4FSF2rZkN8@jntp> <f4890eb5-e8df-4d98-a1ba-98c40f516df5@att.net> <HowGC2OIbH3GwJcRQBgR51F0vzM@jntp> <uvdvua$vnmp$1@i2pn2.org> <7FlE2ap2lYCEKbW6F4ekYb8aZ3s@jntp> <uvhaem$13m07$2@i2pn2.org> <Ru_AyGwfW3klmHhb6sjmxQ_4eqw@jntp> <uvka8l$17msm$1@i2pn2.org> <LUy8jnMOftjltS3mdpX3WN5LLNg@jntp> <uvn1hl$1arkt$1@i2pn2.org>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:47:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e6a7dc71a36f18424fa8fc4a317f9966";
	logging-data="1523080"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m+6ge9cQbCe5oIXS4Z5rEZK+RTn7Nef0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QwycdfRlbMaOkspLGj1eKmFR6yo=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 2130

Richard Damon formulated the question :
> On 4/16/24 10:59 AM, WM wrote:
>> Le 16/04/2024 à 00:38, Richard Damon a écrit :
>> 
>>> Name a Natural Number that can not be doubled!!!
>>>
>> All nameable numbers belong to a potentially infinite collection, a very 
>> small initial segment of ℕ.
>>>
>>>>> Thus, doubling ALL the Natural Numbers still gives you results that are 
>>>>> all Natural Numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Impossible, since all are doubled.
>>>
>>> POSSIBLE!!!!
>>>
>>> That is the "miracle" of INFINITY.
>> 
>> No, it is the incongruence of thinking.
>> For potential infinity it is true. But for actual infinity it is wrong.
>> 
>> Regards, WM
>> 
>> 
> Why?
>
> What number in the set of Natual Numbers doesn't have another Natural Number 
> that is twice it?

Zero?