Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: how
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:49:27 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v4vco8$24786$2@dont-email.me>
References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp>
 <3ac8520c-96fd-49e4-85da-620c64c20515@att.net>
 <5fWjlqMjzUHFygAk1yVCvtuDLOM@jntp>
 <067c2a88-553e-4eb5-9ead-efb0e9a39d43@att.net>
 <VIhO2Ae_yrPsVjSsDz1yJZy_E4g@jntp>
 <7792d74c-4ae9-4909-81cc-7d9975e8d510@att.net>
 <xJmCht9ieNLiQMSR57t03IZLuXs@jntp>
 <c178dd0f-4bb0-47d9-b1e2-e8a7c8b851c0@att.net>
 <mpLoi51m0coJyOmPmE1fRwX_DDg@jntp>
 <c4a5b51e-a9c3-4d3f-b7f9-06a53593d836@att.net>
 <8SqWWZhhlVTCtwSAp_E7XuodBl8@jntp> <v4vbsm$24fi8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:49:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0855a90345f22abd4db42c5674212bf";
	logging-data="2235654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+r6AALwTv7M0gfFLRUGXo/nKAIuuVdqCE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bQoavLrvrqWZvK2zCBxRRge1bVQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4vbsm$24fi8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2998

On 6/19/2024 12:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> WM wrote on 6/19/2024 :
>> Le 18/06/2024 à 23:06, Jim Burns a écrit :
>>
>>> If the set of numbers.remaining
>>>   does not hold a first element,
>>> then the set of numbers.remaining
>>>   is the empty set.
>>
>> That is your big mistake! Start to count, continue, continue, 
>> continue, .. . What you can determine that you can count. The set of 
>> not counted numbers remains infinite. But you cannot determine a first 
>> element.
> 
> Of course you can. Every finite set 'removed' or 'counted' has a last 
> element, add one to that to get the next element which *was* the first 
> of the 'almost all' that you think are left.
> 
>> All your following waffle is worthless, because it violates this 
>> fundamental truth. Simply try it instead of "proving" counterfactual 
>> nonense.
> 
> You're lucky not to see how bad this makes you look.

Wow. WM says there is no first element... Strange!

r[0] = 0

Oh, we defined the first element for:

r[n + 1] = r[n] + 1

....forevermore...

Going from the other way is moronic. No wonder why WM thinks that there 
is an actual largest natural number, light and/or dark, whatever. Wow...

;^o

Moronic for sure. WM needs to learn that once I define a natural number, 
say 42, it has a finite number of predecessors, and an infinite number 
of successors. WM calls them dark, yet tried to tell me that there is a 
largest dark natural number, we just can't see it yet. What a joke.