Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3ups0$21poj$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: how Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:10:55 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: <v3ups0$21poj$1@dont-email.me> References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp> <673764b9-69b9-41a2-ab82-bf90d8dee8e8@att.net> <DSsi9L0M1oTRAKCwCD51ban-egM@jntp> <f19c9718-9faf-4376-9c7d-5b0ec5ccce49@att.net> <5cjx16x9QcPy_u3MHizdiDCz_W8@jntp> <bd0ded55-16d4-454f-af12-896f024368d8@att.net> <bbfAzB76a9GzcAGShLauCHw3_MA@jntp> <5424f82c-1f04-43af-8963-3e325d797c8e@att.net> <vJvCxLOj98F4nrRmEh2M6dyGkSc@jntp> <v3su74$1k0sm$3@dont-email.me> <yIKqPz795F3VQXgdLfDbNosNLRc@jntp> Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 13:10:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d12a4f47c81d7536be6ba7ee3d734ca1"; logging-data="2156307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QtCLdZemqpSo4cwh0oXhE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wPNUBEtn2KWD9HrkVobsmjd6NeI= Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <yIKqPz795F3VQXgdLfDbNosNLRc@jntp> Bytes: 2008 Am 07.06.2024 um 13:01 schrieb WM: > Le 06/06/2024 à 20:12, Moebius a écrit : >> Am 05.06.2024 um 22:39 schrieb WM: >> >> > most natural numbers are uncountable, >> >> Nonsense. > > <bla> NO natural number is "uncountable" you silly asshole. Proof (by induction): 1 is "countable" (at least in my book). If n is "countable", then n+1 is "countable" too (again, at least in my book). Hence all natural numbers are "countable". (This implies that NO natural number is "uncountable".) qed See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction