Path: ...!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 reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The
 non-existence of "dark numbers"]
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:43:39 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vrlt7r$3hfcp$3@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:43:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d42801696bdd1b1adfab498870700b12";
	logging-data="3718553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//4jnSAeEn8f4lPSWSuIpFT0fBXvef9/s="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2tuEOFSU2wY5Nr0No/IoxnoBHVg=
In-Reply-To: <vrkca8$18dh$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3443

On 21.03.2025 19:48, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You mean something like positive numbers have a reality score of 5, and
> the even positive numbers only have a reality score of 3?

No, The number of positive numbers is |ℕ|. The number of even natural 
numbers is |ℕ|/2. It needs really years of brainwashing to honestly 
believe that addition of a number or subset leaves the number of 
elements unchanged. It leaves the cardinality unchanged because this 
notion is tantamount to potential infinity.

 >> 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.

You have pronounced your own sentence: Your opinions are rubbish.

 >  He was a mathematician.

And you are not at all educated in this field.

 >> "Coun[t]able" is simply another name for potential infinity.
 >
 > Not even close.

You are simply unable to follow reasonable ideas.

 >> 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.
 >
 > Hah!  He's got to you, has he?

No, that is my judgement on JB.

Regards, WM