Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris M. Thomasson" Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit fractions? (infinitary) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:34:08 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 41 Message-ID: References: <88e6a631-417a-4dd0-9443-a57116dcbd28@att.net> <7a1e34df-ffee-4d30-ae8c-2af5bcb1d932@att.net> <6a90a2e2-a4fa-4a8d-83e9-2e451fa8dd51@att.net> <0e5fb47d-60f7-42bb-beec-4a9661c807da@tha.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:34:09 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="455c24f95a17f59c8fbd0a2a00f2944a"; logging-data="2429827"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JZGV4U8BdjgN7Xo3MCe79BGTRrDK/7M0=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GbBoBbxWpAEMYIxYqy3Q0DYnqlw= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3381 On 10/30/2024 1:19 PM, Moebius wrote: > Am 30.10.2024 um 21:04 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 10/30/2024 12:48 PM, WM wrote: >>> On 30.10.2024 16:43, FromTheRafters wrote: >>>> on 10/30/2024, WM supposed : >>> >>>>> Believe what you like without foundation. >>>>> If ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 is true, the NUF(x) grows in steps of >>>>> not more than 1. >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>> >>> What? ∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0 ? >> >> 1/1 - 1/2 is greater than zero. >> >> Wow, what a discovery! lol. ;^/ >> >> 1/2 - 1/3 is greater than zero. >> 1/3 - 1/4 is greater than zero. >> ... On and on ... >> >> They never hit zero. Got it? >> >> No unit [fraction] equals zero. > > Yeah, that should be clear from the fact that an unit fraction has "the > form" 1/n where n is a natural number (by definition). Since there is no > natural number n such that 1/n = 0. :-P (If there were such a natural > number, say wm, we would get 1 = 1/wm * wm = 0 * wm = 0.) > > Mückenheim's great discovery is that the DISTANCE between two "adjacent" > unit fractions is always > 0. Incredible! > > For absolutely no reason he now "thinks" that this fact implies a > smallest unit fraction. :-) > We know that the unit fractions tend to zero but never equal it. So, WM thinks well, the limit means finite? Or some shit like that? Humm...