| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4d26b$1qq74$4@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: A question for WM... Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:58:51 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <v4d26b$1qq74$4@dont-email.me> References: <v4d035$1qbpc$4@dont-email.me> <8poALBgLutZVHj-DAl8PZinOwN8@jntp> <v4d1o4$1qq74$1@dont-email.me> <5vT0Pf7TVkA8zCTQX0Dhh_em-88@jntp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:58:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="756c09a108aab1c0fdb2e8b3dadbd215"; logging-data="1927396"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lYA2JEO5OaWj2d419+zmD3R2A4JyKm08=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GSZUo53y1qh/79QgGHrqhZERP44= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <5vT0Pf7TVkA8zCTQX0Dhh_em-88@jntp> Bytes: 3007 On 6/12/2024 1:57 PM, WM wrote: > Le 12/06/2024 à 22:51, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : >> On 6/12/2024 1:42 PM, WM wrote: >>> Le 12/06/2024 à 22:23, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit : >>>> Wrt your logic, I have some questions: >>>> ____________ >>>> Are there infinitely many "dark" numbers? >>> >>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Is there only a finite number of "light" numbers? >>> >>>> As in a global database with all of the numbers witnessed by humans? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> Say a little kid, say 3 years old has never saw the number 42 >>>> before... So, this number is light because I just wrote it, it is >>>> not dark. However, it is "dark" wrt the the kid? >>> >>> Yes, the darkness is related to the system. If the kid is isolated, >>> then 42 is dark in its system. >>> >>> The next 10^1000 prime numbers are dark for us but an advanced >>> civilization may know them already. >> >> Ahhhh. I think I see what you just might be getting at all along... >> Infinitely many dark numbers is saying that N is indeed infinite, but >> say the (current) largest number, say largest prime we have currently >> detected and printed out?... (kidding, lol), is light to us now, as we >> progress wrt technology and sheer smarts we will be able to actually >> calculate higher primes..., > > but almost all will remain dark forever. > >> that will turn from dark to light, right? Am I getting closer to your >> line of thinking, WM? We know that there are infinitely many primes, >> but the ones we have not actually calculated yet, are dark, but the >> are still very much, _there_ in N, indeed. Any closer, WM? Or way off >> your mark, so to speak? Humm... > > I think you've got it. There are infinitely many dark natural numbers, aka, we have not seen (aka, calculated, "printed them out") them yet? There is no largest dark number, right?