Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers"
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:41:46 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <vrkiug$2b00k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org>   <0dcd52f8-c0ca-4e41-bb47-3a4e689f103e@att.net> <vr75vb$2a6rk$1@dont-email.me> <c60b35cb-33a8-40a7-ad7a-4c5841a6f454@att.net> <vr78ng$2a6rj$3@dont-email.me> <578344c0-4d58-4dcb-8a89-988e3e60f9d7@att.net> <vr7ivf$2jj8r$3@dont-email.me> <3a9f34ab-c270-4dfc-b23c-14741b68875b@att.net> <vr8a53$3dsos$1@dont-email.me> <3af4ba5e-63c6-4145-966c-67c832e127bc@att.net> <vr9him$bvhg$1@dont-email.me> <fc1d5825-1d93-4ac8-a6e4-e513cfce213a@att.net> <vrbcnf$23ker$2@dont-email.me> <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>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:41:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d4e986d34abbe746fb657f8dff28d079";
	logging-data="2457620"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1AJej2TaZs2EG+zwIUjFlE4z8eKqcjIs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1X5RQia82C7qZPizAt1ayPOeP68=
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
X-ICQ: 1701145376
Bytes: 2990

WM pretended :
> On 21.03.2025 18:39, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 3/21/2025 3:50 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 20.03.2025 23:25, Jim Burns wrote:
>> 
>>>> For sets not.having a WM.size,
>>>> Bob vanishing isn't a size.change.
>>>
>>> Only if reducing isn't reducing.
>> 
>> What you (WM) think is reducing
>> isn't reducing.
>
> You confuse the clear fact that in the reality of sets vanishing means 
> reducing with the foolish claim that cardinality was a meaningful notion.
>
> Learn that even Cantor has accepted 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! "Counable" is 
> simply another name for potential infinity.
>
> Therefore vanishing odd numbers means reducing the reality of the set.
>
> Therefore the sentence "What you (WM) think is reducing isn't reducing" 
> exhibits you as a snooty dilettante who cannot distinguish between 
> cardinality and reality.

What does reality have to do with it?