Path: ...!news.mixmin.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.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 13:22:21 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <va09hs$30hb2$2@dont-email.me>
References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp>
 <45ad1007-b1a7-49d0-a650-048f02738226@att.net>
 <ZrUpfgO3RQL0qsj_ugH_ng035iM@jntp>
 <e51a19c8-9f22-43ec-a382-b93019b4ce1d@att.net>
 <Aj67svgBqlC6ubyAZ01SM3EN5mc@jntp>
 <9ef8dd8a-69be-44e2-bcf6-ea9c1fb30e21@att.net>
 <LHtSphVaxvF9i9lsFtvEfbB4PS8@jntp>
 <92189533-0c1f-4532-816f-564651cc8bf7@att.net>
 <zzRMVwrDvZCAHeIta8vMnBBxp8E@jntp>
 <c4bbc4d3-26b3-4e53-9c82-87c8396d155d@att.net>
 <UxK9-w52mbKHJ77U1V4M6I24HeY@jntp>
 <c8abcebe-b826-45de-8507-71521bf2d6a7@att.net> <v9vune$2unef$1@dont-email.me>
 <va09em$30hb2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 22:22:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6efd8b5fa0a0bd57c78076782c4b1411";
	logging-data="3163490"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dKMVkPrrXwR5bJdILvWg/T8Dtpis3IpU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0zObp8S8+MDdzgowcVlTHHXmk+M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va09em$30hb2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2908

On 8/19/2024 1:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/19/2024 10:17 AM, Moebius wrote:
>> Am 19.08.2024 um 18:58 schrieb Jim Burns:
>>
>> You got it totally wrong!
>>
>> The dark unit fractions are smaller than the (all) visible ones.
>>
>> Now: The visible unit fraction don't have a smallest one (of course), 
>> but the dark unit fraction do (at least in mückenmath)!
>>
>> WM: "Dark unit fractions have a smallest element."
>>
>> See?!
>>
>> WM: "Visible unit fractions have the [or rather *a*] lower bound 0."
>>
>> Right, but the dark unit fractions ARE BETWEEN 0 and all the visible 
>> unit fractions.
>>
>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
>> and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number
>>
>> WM: "No smaller [dark] unit fractions [than the smallest one] is 
>> existing, because no larger [dark] natnumber {than the largest one] is 
>> existing."
>>
>> Right!
> 
> Is this one of WM's dark unit fractions:
> 
> 1 / (hyper_really_really_tiny_small)
> 
> The funny part is that hyper_really_really_tiny_small should really be:
> 
> hyper_really_really_large
> 
> lol. What a joke.

In this sense... Forget about unit fractions, WM thinks that there is a 
largest natural number. This right there is radically ridiculous to me. 
Unit fractions aside for a moment...