Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:50:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <vrei3v$10425$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <vr3pvd$20r1$1@news.muc.de>
 <vr4cgl$3qbcs$3@dont-email.me> <vr6fgl$1uok$1@news.muc.de>
 <vr6tit$21dt9$1@dont-email.me> <vr71ea$qjf$1@news.muc.de>
 <vr774e$2a6rj$2@dont-email.me> <vr7b30$qjf$2@news.muc.de>
 <vr7jql$2jj8r$4@dont-email.me> <vr92l8$1pc1$1@news.muc.de>
 <vr9gla$bvhh$1@dont-email.me> <vrbn3b$2d16$1@news.muc.de>
 <vrc3ps$2og7j$1@dont-email.me> <vrc64d$219n$1@news.muc.de>
 <vrcd1j$310vm$1@dont-email.me> <vrcigp$219n$2@news.muc.de>
 <vre37f$ishj$1@dont-email.me> <vreb4i$7kb$3@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:50:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f9f26c81ac23d253c44dec1578e707c";
	logging-data="1052741"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+WFgbDXTxKYGnvFmRld94Xm6H668c59Fo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R4MyhMX9lpqnY5w2gPDahHvjp4U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vreb4i$7kb$3@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 2951

On 19.03.2025 12:51, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>> On 18.03.2025 20:45, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Perhaps you can help me with something that WM refuses to answer: In
>>> German mathematical texts, is the verb "subtrahieren" used to refer to
>>> the removal of an element or subset of a set from that set?
> 
>> I told you that even in English set subtraction is used.
>> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1514758/set-theory-distributive-laws-with-respect-to-the-subtraction-of-sets

Unknown to you?
> 
>>>> Indeed! Especially, since his claim ("the set of FISONs is not ℕ")
>>>> is wrong in the context of ZF(C) [with IN defined due to von
>>>> Neumann].
> 
>> Therefore the context of ZF is wrong!
> 
>>> I've given up arguing with him.
> 
>> Because you have no chance either to make us believe that you can't
>> understand this simple sentence: The subtraction of all FISONs which
>> cannot empty ℕ cannot empty ℕ. Nor can you reasonably claim that all
>> FISONs fail when applied one after the other but succeed when applied
>> together.

> I have already dealt with the things in
> that last paragraph. 

Yes, you said that you could not understand them. Meanwhile I believe 
that you are not a liar but in fact too stupid to understand.

Regards, WM