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 reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"]
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 15:08:24 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <vsrv3f$30qp9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqrbtd$1chb7$2@solani.org> <vrsb4p$1gv1d$3@dont-email.me> <vrsgn5$1lg8$4@news.muc.de> <vrujtd$3l4hv$1@dont-email.me> <vrusi3$10kn$2@news.muc.de> <vrv3c4$3vgl8$1@dont-email.me> <vrves5$1507$1@news.muc.de> <vs1l08$2cnha$1@dont-email.me> <3449b34c60603bf59f694df42857003d0bda7ab5@i2pn2.org> <vs1o24$2c93u$2@dont-email.me> <vs1s4h$26e3$2@news.muc.de> <vs4blb$eulg$6@solani.org> <vs6g7b$2mp5$1@news.muc.de> <vsjiud$22the$1@dont-email.me> <vsmmem$v6u$1@news.muc.de> <vsmr1s$1fvvf$1@dont-email.me> <vsp24j$2ovs$1@news.muc.de> <vspccl$8ai3$1@dont-email.me> <vspi02$fd6e$1@dont-email.me> <vsrubn$2vbtc$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: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 21:08:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b319212e9201ad50724e700ffbd443cf";
	logging-data="3173161"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+T87WvYnuDERwFab/XJUXAYq+uXKSbweI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0J7EZObjuEJ2qyaz9DatENBNum0=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 2333

WM was thinking very hard :
> On 04.04.2025 23:12, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> WM wrote on 4/4/2025 :
>
>>> You are caught in a world of stupidity. Set theorists have damaged the 
>>> honour of human intellect even more than Pope Pius XII.
>>>
>>> When an element is added to a set, then this set is no longer the same but 
>>> different because the number of its members is different.
>> 
>> How do you know that they are not 'the same'?
>
> A set containing element x is not the same as a set not containing element x.

Then of course they are not "the same" but are they equivalent in size?

>> No bijection perhaps?
>
> There are no definable infinite bijections.

Yada yada yada,