Path: ...!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 many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit
 fractions?
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:21:09 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vbvev5$c99f$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4rde$22fb4$2@solani.org> <vbn3eb$2em18$4@dont-email.me>
 <vbn45r$2d8fc$10@dont-email.me> <vbnfvo$2gn73$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbnuqq$2it4a$2@dont-email.me> <vbp9dk$2u3sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbq4ve$31fu6$10@dont-email.me>
 <fd09e9afa6b0c3041b90c5d788681bb2c92f9d2e@i2pn2.org>
 <vbs9v8$3l368$3@dont-email.me>
 <73f09425214bb25768fabf576b4ae5d98ef97431@i2pn2.org>
 <Iz5zSuCuwslwe6r8CqsrwF8fszk@jntp>
 <6f3449f217f4825ff9b62b1da1443fc894ef8bf2@i2pn2.org>
 <vbv9ss$bpjg$1@dont-email.me>
 <72013af9b15c996e99fd25954a34fc98eab1d080@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 21:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="26dfebf598c361779a3e3249a41dbd07";
	logging-data="402735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WscKRDkymCOQ9jX5xmxHhTfM0zRee1bY="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ju7k0sEbKwgUfyUuqtlFroRSpSM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <72013af9b15c996e99fd25954a34fc98eab1d080@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3604

On 9/12/2024 11:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/12/24 1:54 PM, WM wrote:
>> On 12.09.2024 14:35, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/12/24 7:18 AM, WM wrote:
>>>> Le 12/09/2024 à 03:00, Richard Damon a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> So, you can't "index" an unbounded set of unit fractions from 0, as 
>>>>> there isn't a "first" unit fraction from that end.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can "address" those unit fractions with the value, but we can 
>>>>> not "index" them from 0, only from 1/1.
>>>>
>>>> If you can index all unit fractions, then you can index them from 
>>>> every side.
>>>> Fact is that NUF(x) increases from 0, but at no point it can 
>>>> increase by more than 1 because of
>>>> ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0
>>
>>> Nope, that ASSUMPTION just means you can't actually have an infinite 
>>> set, as you can't get to the upper end to let you count down.
>>
>> Wrong. Dark numbers prevent counting to the end. Dark numbers 
>> establish the existence of a set where no end can be seen. That is the 
>> only way to make infinity and completeness compatible.
>>>
>>> 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 thus says that no 1/n is the smallest, as there 
>>> will exist a 1/(n+1) that is smaller that that.
>>
>> That is not a proof of existence. The formula says: If n and n+1 
>> exist, then they differ.
>>
>> Regards, WM
> 
> No, it says that if n is in the Natural Numbers, then the value of the 
> expression 1/n - 1/(n+1) is greater than 0, and thus must exist, and 
> thus n+1 must exist.

WM seems to like to mix and match systems... WM says is 1.6969 in the 
naturals?, no therefore its dark. Well... It not so dark because its 
written down. It tries again. lol.

> 
> If you think there is some n that exist that doesn't have an n+1 that 
> exist, then your idea of the Natural Number system is just incorrect, 
> and you are admitting that you only have  afinite set of numbers, and 
> thus NUF(1) must be a finite number, not Alehp_0, so everything you have 
> said about it is just a lie.