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: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:11:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vrukjb$3l4hv$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <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> <vrlt7r$3hfcp$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrmg0s$308h$1@news.muc.de> <vrpfon$2q4gq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrsf9n$1lg8$2@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 17:11:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3da338aa076d1cb1638e1bf364f94e88";
	logging-data="3838527"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U3bBp4Sp9Vb5iew7P5M0vUKQ+ZygAWVk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LG4Gh+f0Jm3se4029FXLNGgUhU8=
In-Reply-To: <vrsf9n$1lg8$2@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3369

On 24.03.2025 21:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>> On 22.03.2025 15:04, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
> 
>>> Tell me, which of these infinite sets is bigger: {0, 4, 8, 12, 16, ....}
>>> and {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ....}?
> 
>> The second, of course.
> 
> Prove it.

For every large enough interval [0, n] the quotient of number of 
elements is about 2. In the limit 2 is attained.
> 
>> You need only consider finite sections and take the limit. Great
>> mathematicians have devised this method.
> 
> What on Earth do you mean by "finite sections", if anything?

Have you never done simple mathematics?

> And take
> what limit?  Which great mathematician(s) were supposedly involved in
> this method.

Try to get better. I will no longer respond to such stupid questions.
> 
>>> The mathematically correct answer is that they are both the same size
>>> (cardinality) because there is a bijection between them.
> 
>> Nonsense. The "bijection" is invalid because there are always infinitely
>> many elements following after every defined pair.
> 
> You are (?deliberately) ignorant of the definition of bijection.
> "Following after every defined pair", if it's not meaningless, is only
> the empty set.

Try to define a pair that is only followed by the empty set!

> The bijection between these two sets exists and is
> uncontroversial.

among imbeciles.

> As I've said more than once, I have a degree in maths.

But you can't understand the simplest problems like that above.

> You do not.

Wrong.

> Which one of us is more likely to be misinformed about mathematics?

You show that you can't understand such simple things as the relative 
magnitudes of the above sets.

Regards, WM