Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: WM Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: The non-existence of "dark numbers" Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:43:08 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <8734fghp5m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 17:43:09 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed22730a009f65a5192a721e5374f938"; logging-data="3615551"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tiDiSIc4LWcIahTo6JEdOFTdsjMzv5ws=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:i1SprVVUfnefW0N9eaVlWrJ99dE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <8734fghp5m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Bytes: 2020 On 13.03.2025 17:27, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > WMaths does (apparently) have one result that is not a theorem of modern > mathematics. In WMaths there sets P and E such that > > E in P and P \ {E} = P That is caused by potential infinity. The sets or better collections are not fixed. > > WM himself called this a "surprise" but unfortunately he has never been > able to offer a proof. Much more surprising is the idea that all natural numbers can be subtracted from ℕ with nothing remaining ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }. But when we explicitly subtract only numbers which have ℵo remainders ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo then by magic spell also all remainders vanish. Otherwise U(FISONs) = ℕ ==> Ø = ℕ. Regards, WM