Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:52:09 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:52:09 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="748200"; 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: 3190 Lines: 38 Am Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:29:08 +0100 schrieb WM: > On 18.03.2025 17:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> WM wrote: >>> On 18.03.2025 12:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> WM wrote: >> >>>>> The set of FISONs is an inductive set. But it is not ℕ because ∀n ∈ >>>>> UF: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo. >>>> That "because" doesn't hold >>> Because you say so? That's not significant. >> There's no connection between the bit before the because and the bit >> afterwards. You're the one who's lacking a degree in maths, > No. Headline please? >> not me, and it shows > that degrees are not guaranteeing the ability to think mathematically. Indeed. >>> it is decisive: ℕ_def contains all numbers the subtraction of which >>> from ℕ does not result in the empty set. Obviously the subtraction of >>> all numbers which cannot empty ℕ cannot empty ℕ. >> I've told you and explained to you, I don't know how many times, that >> that is ill-conceived meaningless gibberish. > Can you imagine a natural number that when subtracted from ℕ does not > empty ℕ? Here are some examples: 2, 5, 17. More are available. This is so stupid. OF COURSE N contains more than one element. > Can you imagine a set of natural numbers that when subtracted from ℕ > does not empty ℕ? Here are some examples: {4, 9}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. More > are vailable. > Now imagine all FISONs. None empties ℕ when applied one after the other. Hold on. No single one or no FISON of them? Not that it changes anything. > Could that change when all are applied together? Yup. Why shouldn't it? -- 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.