Path: ...!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: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:06:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <vrshhe$1o5sv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <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> <vrlt7r$3hfcp$3@dont-email.me>
 <9e0c7e728f7de44e13450d7401fe65d36c5638f3@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpsaa$3708j$1@dont-email.me> <vrpud0$po9$2@news.muc.de>
 <vrpvur$3adjs$1@dont-email.me> <vrq1e0$po9$3@news.muc.de>
 <vrsdln$1gv1c$4@dont-email.me> <vrsg0a$1lg8$3@news.muc.de>
 <vrsh5n$1m478$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: invalid@example.invalid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:06:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c8d33bf3036d3ff7f40cb6616576354d";
	logging-data="1841055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DYC/jHGXUVHzU7fnjSkMf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EY8Djl5YSzsBU+jQaWVfKq0Fpsg=
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vrsh5n$1m478$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2559

Am 24.03.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Moebius:
> Am 24.03.2025 um 21:40 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>>> On 23.03.2025 23:19, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> WM seemed to be saying that the "reality"/"substance" of any two sets
> 
> where one is a subset of the other
> 
>>>> could be ranked, with one greater than the other (unless they were,
>>>> somehow, the same).
>>
>>> We [might] say: Sets with different elements like even and odd integers
>>> have different substance but same [number of elements].*)
> 
> Indeed! :-P
> 
> With "number of elements" == "cardinality"
> 
> Nuff said. :-P
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 
> *) And what would be the arguments for this claim? I mean, that {2n : n 
> e IN} and {2n + 1 : n e IN} have the same "number of elements" in 
> WMmath? Just because HE said so?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit