Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit fractions? (infinitary) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:21:01 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6ed3abd1b4d30ed6db4b9152f7a0ad5da583f147@i2pn2.org> References: <7a1e34df-ffee-4d30-ae8c-2af5bcb1d932@att.net> <6a90a2e2-a4fa-4a8d-83e9-2e451fa8dd51@att.net> <30dffbdf129483f7b61e3284d1e7bf2ad2e5ea16@i2pn2.org> <9ca97f4a24ae1e3041583265125cf860d2fada11@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:21:01 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="590168"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 3298 Lines: 30 Am Fri, 01 Nov 2024 18:03:26 +0100 schrieb WM: > On 01.11.2024 13:33, FromTheRafters wrote: >> After serious thinking WM wrote : >>> On 01.11.2024 11:57, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>> It happens that WM formulated : >>>>> On 01.11.2024 00:43, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/31/24 1:35 PM, WM wrote: >>>>>>> On 31.10.2024 12:36, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/30/24 11:38 AM, WM wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NUF(x) MUST jump from 0 to Aleph_0 at all real values x, as >>>>>>>>>> below ANY real number x, there are Aleph_0 unit fractions. >>>>>>> You cannot distinguish them by any real number? That proves that >>>>>>> they are dark. >>>>>> They are not finite values. >>>>> All unit fractions are finite values. >>>> Each unit fraction is finite, the set of all unit fractions is not >>>> finite. Not finite is 'infinite' and there is no potential or actual >>>> anymore -- just finite and not finite. >>> Actual means that all are there, >> They are all there anyway, by definition. >>> including the smallest. >> No smallest, since you simply inverted the set of naturals which has no >> largest. > If an invariable set of numbers is there, then there is a smallest and a > largest number of those which are existing. That's just wrong. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.