Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Moebius <invalid@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 02:09:50 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v93moe$b79i$2@dont-email.me>
References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp>
 <IzWzFdkkm97GEXyAioF3IpRiSfI@jntp>
 <42d2b329-5394-47e0-b8c9-098908b2e9a8@att.net>
 <__cCn6h6Ey1Kz0BrIf6EShypg4M@jntp>
 <e8a3a66a-7d83-4658-9f4c-23d7dc354fb9@att.net>
 <iqelfxYKWhBbwcm10DcO5hr3scI@jntp>
 <f920592b-897c-48b9-a9af-80f25bc60e4b@att.net>
 <DDPks1ynTy6IhIWNHaxt25GM1v0@jntp>
 <c1f0efc8-04ca-4f2d-9820-cfd54c0eca73@att.net> <v90rp5$3dbpd$1@dont-email.me>
 <L8Pl0ELcnLfKVO0KrMmhSqDd-Y0@jntp> <v926ot$3tjq6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v93a8c$7o8h$1@dont-email.me> <v93m57$b7a2$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 02:09:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1e9f2d409ea2b6d1cf69b9debede1b8";
	logging-data="367922"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++TSn92t0qo1H+Bu+8JXMh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nktZMVTUv3oaVcQPPnbOxCtBgs8=
In-Reply-To: <v93m57$b7a2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: de-DE
Bytes: 2542

Am 09.08.2024 um 01:59 schrieb Moebius:
> Am 08.08.2024 um 22:36 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>> On 8/8/2024 3:30 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> on 8/8/2024, WM supposed :
>>>> Le 08/08/2024 à 00:17, Moebius a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, his "thinking process" is simple:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since there is a gap (space) between adjacent unit fractions and 
>>>>> all unit fractions are in the interval (0, 1], there *must* be 
>>>>> FINITELY MANY of them (i.e. a first/smallest one)."
>>>>
>>>> No, that is nonsense. There are not finitely many unit fractions.
>>>
>>> Then stop assuming that there is a first [i.e. smallest] element.
>>
>> The first unit fraction is 1/1, there is no last one...
> 
> Nope. We are using the usual order < defined on IR to determine if there 
> is a first (smallest) / last (largest) unit fraction.
> 
> So there is no first/smallest unit fraction and there is a last/largest 
> unit farction (namely 1/1), in respect to <.

Hint: WM is just a complete idiot.