Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Moebius <invalid@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The
 non-existence of "dark numbers"]
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:37:15 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <vrkf5b$279ci$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>
 <ae5edd89-d5da-4ff4-a723-485cafa92582@att.net> <vrc8n0$2og7i$2@dont-email.me>
 <0b8644b2-7027-420e-b187-8214daaf9e3b@att.net> <vrf5bp$1gcun$1@dont-email.me>
 <b3730bf7-bcd1-4698-b465-6d6ef190b29d@att.net> <vrgm1k$2s8c6$2@dont-email.me>
 <c81100d7-9354-4c8e-b216-e147cab9b41c@att.net> <vrhrlb$3ta8t$1@dont-email.me>
 <c0de7504-7d17-42f1-83e8-8767c0859c0c@att.net> <vrj5nh$12273$1@dont-email.me>
 <efbe60c5-6691-4fd6-8638-589fd95ec8a4@att.net> <vrkabi$233at$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrkca8$18dh$1@news.muc.de>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:37:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe1706e9f690cb83ee95849cd29f0ec";
	logging-data="2336146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/403wYeOQPXuBUCC5jfEpo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mqele1OlKv836iDk8VjqtOagpRo=
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vrkca8$18dh$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 2416

Am 21.03.2025 um 19:48 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:

>> Learn that [...] Cantor [once] has [uttered] that the positive numbers have more
>> reality than the even positive numbers. 
>> He said that is not in conflict with the identical cardinality of both
>> sets. And he was right!
> 
> I doubt very much Cantor said such rubbish.
Actually, WM is right here. But the notion of "more reality" clearly 
wasn't meant as a technical term (by Cantor). He -Cantor- was just 
trying to explain the mathematical fact that 2IN is a PROPER subset of 
IN, while both sets still have the same cardinality. (I'd dare to bet 
that this was the only time he ever used that phrase in this context.)

Hint: WM is all about words.