Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: How many different unit fractions are lessorequal than all unit fractions? Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 07:08:58 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <3cda50fa46d5151236bcaca2a63ee0d983e52e86@i2pn2.org> References: <298dcb6f-5f58-48b6-80e3-34260bf721f8@att.net> <283c426f-ab1c-4ef0-a06c-1bf7d28a2cfa@att.net> <6b50a171-8127-4ce6-9bd3-2dc213638e9b@att.net> <519db81b-4a4d-417d-8cd2-7fef5a342efd@att.net> <6704347e-2f99-40f2-887f-de93f6fdd659@tha.de> <8b3e744d-3419-40c3-a7c6-fe59edd528a9@tha.de> <52f2f1b438b49812b0dac031a7dcb5e1cf8e7259@i2pn2.org> <68ff21abb8e0f40ff2d435fa2077b9f44c5a55b3@i2pn2.org> <3fc406c327f7e3d57710b0ba16167ee522450253@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:08:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="89506"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 3047 Lines: 39 On 9/30/24 7:56 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/30/2024 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 9/29/24 3:16 PM, WM wrote: >>> On 28.09.2024 14:58, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 9/27/24 3:06 PM, WM wrote: >>>>> On 25.09.2024 19:12, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The problem is that it turns out the NUF(x) NEVER actually >>>>>> "increments" by 0ne at any finite point, it jumps from 0 to >>>>>> infinity (Aleph_0) in the unboundedly small gap between 0 and all >>>>>> x > 0, >>>>> >>>>> How do you distinguish them? >>>> >>>> They have different values, so why can't you? >>> >>> Then distinguish the first one. >>> >>> Regards, WM >> >> There isn't a first one. >> >> Show me a circle with 4 sides. > > ;^) Humm, an n-gon where n is taken to infinity is a circle? > But 4 is not infinity. You example is just an illustration that WM's logic might be just a crude approximation for correctness, but then he relies on the parts that are only an approximation. Like asserting from the measurements of the square that pi is 4 >> >> You are just proving your logic is non-sense. > >