Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: The reality of sets, on a scale of 1 to 10 [Was: The non-existence of "dark numbers"] Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:28:39 -0000 (UTC) Organization: muc.de e.V. Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:28:39 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2"; logging-data="98577"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de" User-Agent: tin/2.6.4-20241224 ("Helmsdale") (FreeBSD/14.2-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)) Bytes: 2038 Lines: 21 Moebius wrote: > Am 22.03.2025 um 15:44 schrieb Moebius: >> Am 22.03.2025 um 15:04 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: >>> WM wrote: >>>> It leaves the cardinality unchanged because this notion is tantamount >>>> to potential infinity. >>> You're stuck in the 1880s. >> Nope. Actually, his claim ist absurd nonsense. Es handelt sich bei WM um >> einen aufmerksamkeitsheischenden, geisteskranker Spinner. > Hint: (a) Sets have /cardinality/. (b) There are no "potentially > infinite" sets. Either a set is infinite or not (i.e. finite). Yes, very much so. The term "potentially infinite" has no use in mathematics. Philosophers, etc., might cling to it, though. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).