1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.MATH

  • Re: Even numbers

    From joes@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 19 11:31:33 2024
    Am Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:16:21 +0200 schrieb WM:
    On 18.10.2024 00:34, Jim Burns wrote:
    On 10/17/2024 2:22 PM, WM wrote:

    A nonempty set without a first element is not a set of only finite
    ordinals.

    Proof: If you double all your finite ordinals you obtain only finite
    ordinals again,
    although the same infinity,
    although the covered interval is twice as large as the
    original interval covered by "all" your finite ordinals.
    Nah. There are countably many (Aleph_0) even numbers. Blah blah
    consecutive. If 2n>n, then also 2(n+1)>n+1.

    --
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 20 22:28:16 2024
    Am Sun, 20 Oct 2024 21:50:20 +0200 schrieb WM:
    On 20.10.2024 21:31, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/20/24 10:26 AM, WM wrote:
    On 20.10.2024 13:56, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/20/24 3:48 AM, WM wrote:

    All doubled numbers result in larger numbers. That cannot be
    avoided.
    But since there isn't a "largest" number,
    There is completeness.
    Which meaning of "Completeness" do you mean?
    For set theory, the "Completeness" of the Natural Numbers says there is
    a suprema of the set
    Completes means that all elements of a set are existing. The natural
    numbers for instance are invariable. The subset of even numbers and the subset of odd numbers are two halves having only half of the reality of
    the natural numbers.
    And incomplete means some members of the set don't "exist"? Bullshit.
    How many odd and even numbers are there?

    --
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)