Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit fractions?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 06:27:42 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <vbmij0$2chh4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org> <3d1a8334-deee-45c6-ae03-340cd8551908@att.net> <vbafj7$3vd6q$1@dont-email.me> <69325e33-6b9a-4c2f-a0e3-25508d41b114@att.net> <rMATvapsf5bpmLmDOt3mDtI5bcA@jntp> <d7e0b83e-66ca-4d1f-a165-69c0dd47718e@att.net> <vberjd$qdqn$1@dont-email.me> <4eab0882-4a5f-4848-a09b-485714912695@att.net> <vbfq2l$utdu$3@dont-email.me> <75c9d649-d983-47fb-95e6-d2743b889481@att.net> <205758fd-bfcb-4bbf-9dd8-845cb3df8c4f@tha.de> <44111bb0-2d71-4714-8c0c-0fdd0a6d1355@att.net> <vbkuhf$20uoi$3@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 12:27:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3c7033241dccfbb092b39565d7f41b4f";
	logging-data="2508324"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WXpUKKYmC1bKqu8F4hbTajGyss7i9XCM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3sCgZPo7WECNnlCvgYUnW6ZKN8s=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 2485

WM was thinking very hard :
> On 07.09.2024 21:01, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 9/7/2024 7:02 AM, WM wrote:
>
>> Different unit fractions are different.
>
> Therefore there is only one the smallest one.
>
>>> They are identical because
>>> NUF(x) counts them at the same x,
>> 
>> Counting.at.x a unit.fraction.in.⅟ℕᵈᵉᶠ∩(0,x)
>> does not mean the unit fraction is at x
>
> NUF counts only unit fractions at their positions.

Wrong! You have already stated that NUF(x) is the number of unit 
fractions less than the real number x. You have also stated that x is a 
natural number and when asked, defended that by stating that natural 
numbers are a subset of the reals.

Are you next going to try proving something about the naturals by going 
to the complex plane? The naturals are all, each, and every already 
defined and there is no need to extend the naturals to prove something 
about the naturals.

There are no Dark Numbers except in your imagination.