On 9/6/2021 3:02 PM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb
> am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 20:21:13 UTC+2:

>> Because Ak e N: E(k+1) = E(k)\{k}
>> the intersection is empty.
>
> The intersection is the last endsegment.
> If there is no last endsegment,

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection is not an end segment.

> If there is no last endsegment,
> then every endegment has infinitely many elements
> and there is only a current intersection which is
> the same as the current endegment.

An end segment is
non-empty, and
closed upwards.

The intersection of closed-upwards sets is
closed upwards.

The intersection of end segments where there is
no last end segment is
closed upwards, and
not an end segment.

It is closed upwards and not (non-empty and closed upwards).
Therefore, it is empty.

On 9/6/2021 4:00 PM, C6H12O6 wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
>
>>>> Is it floating? A fluent?
>>>
>>> Yes, since there is no last one to be considered.
>>
>> so the dude never finishes, he has lifetime employment.
>
> you math guys gotta learn to sing *The Internationale*.
>
> la laaaa, lala lala laaaa la, la la lala lala lala.
>

ah... Esperanto!

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:01:05 PM UTC+2, C6H12O6 wrote:

> you math guys gotta learn to sing *The Internationale*.
>
> la laaaa, lala lala laaaa la, la la lala lala lala.

If you say so.

How about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zQTmkY7GI

Btw. Capitalism is evil.

måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 18:59:34 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 15:48:07 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:37:55 AM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > William schrieb am Sonntag, 5. September 2021 um 23:40:55 UTC+2:
> > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:22:35 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > > > William schrieb am Sonntag, 5. September 2021 um 16:27:42 UTC+2:
> > > > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:34:37 AM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > > > > > William schrieb am Sonntag, 5. September 2021 um 01:56:55 UTC+2:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Piffle. The fact that n cannot be written down does not mean n cannot be distinguished.
> > > > > > > How do you distinguish it from another number that cannot be written down?
> > > > > > Why would one have to write down elements of |N_F is order to distinguish them?
> > > > > How do you distinguish them?
> > > > >
> > > > By the fact that they are different.
> > > >
> > > They are nothing unless you can address them.
> > Nope. "address" is just another of the many many many ways you have of saying "write down" . Just because you cannot write down an element of |N_F does not mean it is "nothing"
> >
> How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
>
> Regards, WM

Why are you so obsesssed about 1 kind of notation and our physical capabilities?

Those are not relevant factors in mathematics.

måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 19:28:41 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 19:09:24 UTC+2:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
>
> > > How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
> > Add the term "handle" to the list of the many many many ways you have or saying "write down". Your question is the silly, how can you write and element of |N_F down if the element cannot be written down.
> How do you show that it is and individual and differs from other individuals, i.e., it is not dark?
>
> Regards, WM
for atural numbers we have that n=m if S(n)=S(m). So 2 different elements are different if they have different successors. We do not need to write them down.

On 9/6/2021 3:02 PM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb
> am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 20:21:13 UTC+2:

>> Because Ak e N: E(k+1) = E(k)\{k}
>> the intersection is empty.
>
> The intersection is the last endsegment.
> If there is no last endsegment,

If the intersection is an end segment,
then there is a last end segment.

> If there is no last endsegment,
> then every endegment has infinitely many elements and
> there is only a current intersection
> which is the same as the current endegment.

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection is not an end segment.

An end segment is a non-empty, closed-upwards set.

Not-an-end-segment is an empty or non-closed-upwards set.

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection is an empty or non-closed-upwards set.

The intersection of closed upwards sets is
a closed upwards set.

The intersection of end segments is
a closed upwards set.

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection of end segments is
a closed upwards set which is empty or non-closed-upwards.

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection of end segments is
empty.

On 9/6/2021 10:17 PM, Greg Cunt wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:01:05 PM UTC+2, C6H12O6 wrote:
>
>> you math guys gotta learn to sing *The Internationale*.
>>
>> la laaaa, lala lala laaaa la, la la lala lala lala.
>
> If you say so.
>
> How about this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zQTmkY7GI
>
> Btw. Capitalism is evil.
>

that is very old-school commies,

better new commie music here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egPCKuN8mic

00:01 Bayonets of Justice, Bring Thunder!
03:30 The General's Songun Will Forever Be a Legend
08:26 Bright with Evening Glow
11:54 Song of the Sea
18:39 Night in the Trenches
23:15 Our Victory Day July 27
27:02 Who Taught Me That?
33:35 We Meet at the Front!
36:37 On the Road of Struggle Following the General
42:24 Sound of Horse Hooves in Mount Paektu (A Cappella Version)
45:59 The Two Thousand Ri Amnok River
53:15 My Beautiful Homeland
58:43 Patriotic Song (National Anthem of North Korea)

Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:24:52 UTC+2:
> On 9/6/2021 3:02 PM, WM wrote:
> > Jim Burns schrieb
> > am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 20:21:13 UTC+2:
>
> >> Because Ak e N: E(k+1) = E(k)\{k}
> >> the intersection is empty.
> >
> > The intersection is the last endsegment.
> > If there is no last endsegment,
> If the intersection is an end segment,
> then there is a last end segment.

No, you can consider every endsegment. It is not last and it is infinite.

> > If there is no last endsegment,
> > then every endsegment has infinitely many elements and
> > there is only a current intersection
> > which is the same as the current endsegment.
> If there is no last end segment,
> then the intersection is not an end segment.

The intersection is always an endsegment.

> If there is no last end segment,

then the infinite sequence of intersections is never empty.
Try to understand inclusion monotony.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:10:42 UTC+2:
> måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 19:28:41 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 19:09:24 UTC+2:
> > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> >
> > > > How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
> > > Add the term "handle" to the list of the many many many ways you have or saying "write down". Your question is the silly, how can you write and element of |N_F down if the element cannot be written down.
> > How do you show that it is and individual and differs from other individuals, i.e., it is not dark?
> >
> for atural numbers we have that n=m if S(n)=S(m).

Look, we know that 7 is a natural number.
But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:09:24 UTC+2:
> måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 18:59:34 UTC+2 skrev WM:

> > > > They are nothing unless you can address them.
> > > Nope. "address" is just another of the many many many ways you have of saying "write down" . Just because you cannot write down an element of |N_F does not mean it is "nothing"
> > >
> > How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
>
> Why are you so obsesssed about 1 kind of notation

Every kind is welcome. But there are no kinds in many cases.

> and our physical capabilities?

Mathematics needs physical abilities to be practiced
>
> Those are not relevant factors in mathematics.

Without defining an element there is no mathematics but only matheology.

Regards, WM

On 9/7/2021 1:47 PM, WM wrote:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:10:42 UTC+2:
>> måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 19:28:41 UTC+2 skrev WM:
>>> William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 19:09:24 UTC+2:
>>>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
>>>> Add the term "handle" to the list of the many many many ways you have or saying "write down". Your question is the silly, how can you write and element of |N_F down if the element cannot be written down.
>>> How do you show that it is and individual and differs from other individuals, i.e., it is not dark?
>>>
>> for atural numbers we have that n=m if S(n)=S(m).
>
> Look, we know that 7 is a natural number.

no it is not: 7 is pattern of pixels on your computer screen generated by an ascii code of 'bell', from a keyboard.

No one knows where you got Your 7 from. you could have ripped it from the reals, by intentionally hiding the decimal point and all the zeros that
followed, and infinity of them erased. And we know how much you hate infinity.

> But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.

you simply say "n is a natural number".

>
> Regards, WM
>

Trying to put the cheese back onto your cracker isn't working out too well.

William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 22:51:40 UTC+2:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 3:55:25 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:

> > Can you show an example of two individual elements which are not nameable?
> Add "show" and "nameable" to the many many many ways you have of saying "written down"' This is a silly question asking to write down two elements that cannot be written down.

How do you know that these two are different elements?

> The fact that you cannon write down an element that you cannot write down does not mean the element cannot have other properties.

How do you find out other properties?

> In particular, any element of |N_F will have the properties that every element of |N_F has.

If you have an unwritable object, how do you find out that it is an element of |N_F? If you have two objects, ho can you find out that they differ and in what way?

Regards, WM

Serg io schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 20:56:00 UTC+2:

> > But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.
> you simply say "n is a natural number".

But you can check that its second row is empty and its upper left corner is no vertex.

Regards, WM

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:43:45 PM UTC+2, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:24:52 UTC+2:
> >
> > If there is no last end segment [in a nonempty set M]
> > then the intersection [of M] is not an end segment.
> >
> The intersection is always an endsegment.

No, it isn't.

INTERSECTION {E(n) : n e IN} = {}, but {} is not an endsegment.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 6:33:21 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/6/2021 10:17 PM, Greg Cunt wrote:
> > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 11:01:05 PM UTC+2, C6H12O6 wrote:
> >
> >> you math guys gotta learn to sing *The Internationale*.
> >>
> >> la laaaa, lala lala laaaa la, la la lala lala lala.
> >
> > If you say so.
> >
> > How about this:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5zQTmkY7GI
> >
> > Btw. Capitalism is evil.
> >
> that is very old-school commies,
>
> better new commie music here
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egPCKuN8mic
>
>
> 00:01 Bayonets of Justice, Bring Thunder!
> 03:30 The General's Songun Will Forever Be a Legend
> 08:26 Bright with Evening Glow
> 11:54 Song of the Sea
> 18:39 Night in the Trenches
> 23:15 Our Victory Day July 27
> 27:02 Who Taught Me That?
> 33:35 We Meet at the Front!
> 36:37 On the Road of Struggle Following the General
> 42:24 Sound of Horse Hooves in Mount Paektu (A Cappella Version)
> 45:59 The Two Thousand Ri Amnok River
> 53:15 My Beautiful Homeland
> 58:43 Patriotic Song (National Anthem of North Korea)

Highway Song (Anthem)

On 9/7/2021 2:43 PM, WM wrote:
> Jim Burns schrieb
> am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:24:52 UTC+2:
>> On 9/6/2021 3:02 PM, WM wrote:
>>> Jim Burns schrieb
>>> am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 20:21:13 UTC+2:

>>>> Because Ak e N: E(k+1) = E(k)\{k}
>>>> the intersection is empty.
>>>
>>> The intersection is the last endsegment.
>>> If there is no last endsegment,
>>
>> If the intersection is an end segment,
>> then there is a last end segment.
>
> No, you can consider every endsegment.
> It is not last and it is infinite.

For the intersection INT(C) of the collection C and set B,
a member of C, each member x of INT(C) is also in B.
Because of what an intersection is.

Therefore,
for the intersection INT(C) of the collection C and set B,
a member of C, INT(C) is a subset of B, which is in C.

Therefore,
if we order by inclusion (which we are doing),
INT(C) is "less than" each set in C.
Because of what an intersection is.

If INT(C) equals some member of C,
then INT(C) is last in in C.
Because of what an intersection is.

Consider the collection of all end segments, Ends.
If INT(Ends) is an end segment,
then INT(Ends) is some member of Ends.
And INT(Ends) is a subset of each member of of Ends.
These properties would make INT(Ends) the last of
the members of Ends == the last of all end segments.

Therefore,
if the intersection (of all end segments) is an end segment,
then there is a last end segment (of all end segments).

>>> If there is no last endsegment,
>>> then every endsegment has infinitely many elements and
>>> there is only a current intersection
>>> which is the same as the current endsegment.
>>
>> If there is no last end segment,
>> then the intersection is not an end segment.
>
> The intersection is always an endsegment.

I've noticed that that is your opinion.
I am proving otherwise.

>> If there is no last end segment,
>
> then the infinite sequence of intersections is never empty.

If there is no last end segment,
then inclusion monotony requires that the intersection
is not anywhere in the sequence.

> Try to understand inclusion monotony.

Try to understand contrapositives.

This
| If B then C
and this
| If not C, then not B
are either both true or both false.

This
| If the intersection of all end segments is an end segment,
| then there is a last end segment of all end segments
and this
| If there is no last end segment of all end segments,
| then the intersection of all end segments is not an end segment
are either both true or both false.

An end segment is a non-empty, closed-upwards set.

Not-an-end-segment is an empty or non-closed-upwards set.

If there is no last end segment of all end segments,
then the intersection of all end segments is
an empty or non-closed-upwards set.

The intersection of closed upwards sets is
a closed upwards set.

The intersection of end segments is
a closed upwards set.

If there is no last end segment of all end segments,
then the intersection of all end segments is
a closed upwards set which is empty or non-closed-upwards.

If there is no last end segment,
then the intersection of all end segments is
empty.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:

> If you have an unwritable object, how do you find out that it is an element of |N_F? If you have two objects, ho can you find out that they differ and in what way?

We know that an element that you cannot write down of |N_F exists, and from the fact that every element has a successor (even elements you cannot write down, this is a property of an element of |N_F, another property shared by every element of |N_F is that no element of |N_F is equal to its successor) we know there are two elements that you cannot write down that are not the same. Your insistence that only elements with the property "can be written down" have knowable properties is silly.

--
William Hughes

On 9/7/2021 2:01 PM, WM wrote:
> Serg io schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 20:56:00 UTC+2:
>
>
>>> But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.
>> you simply say "n is a natural number".
>
> But you can check that its second row is empty and its upper left corner is no vertex.
>
> Regards, WM
>

n doesn't need a "row" nor a "vertex" to be a natural number, nor does n need someone to "check" to see if it really is a natural number.

tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:47:43 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:10:42 UTC+2:
> > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 19:28:41 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > > William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 19:09:24 UTC+2:
> > > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
> > > > Add the term "handle" to the list of the many many many ways you have or saying "write down". Your question is the silly, how can you write and element of |N_F down if the element cannot be written down.
> > > How do you show that it is and individual and differs from other individuals, i.e., it is not dark?
> > >
> > for atural numbers we have that n=m if S(n)=S(m).
> Look, we know that 7 is a natural number.
> But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.
>
> Regards, WM

if I say n is in N, then n is a natural number. There is no "identify" it, by definition it is a natural number.

>Mathematics needs physical abilities to be practiced

We do not need to be able to write everything down to argue about them!

>Without defining an element there is no mathematics but only matheology.

That is your PERSONAL OPINION ONLY!

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 02:07:01 UTC-3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:47:43 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 07:10:42 UTC+2:
> > > måndag 6 september 2021 kl. 19:28:41 UTC+2 skrev WM:
> > > > William schrieb am Montag, 6. September 2021 um 19:09:24 UTC+2:
> > > > > On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 1:59:34 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > How would you handle an element and show its existence if you cannot write down or address it?
> > > > > Add the term "handle" to the list of the many many many ways you have or saying "write down". Your question is the silly, how can you write and element of |N_F down if the element cannot be written down.
> > > > How do you show that it is and individual and differs from other individuals, i.e., it is not dark?
> > > >
> > > for atural numbers we have that n=m if S(n)=S(m).
> > Look, we know that 7 is a natural number.
> > But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.
> >
> > Regards, WM
> if I say n is in N, then n is a natural number. There is no "identify" it, by definition it is a natural number.
> >Mathematics needs physical abilities to be practiced
> We do not need to be able to write everything down to argue about them!
> >Without defining an element there is no mathematics but only matheology.
> That is your PERSONAL OPINION ONLY!

I call it "Myckemyth". It is characterized by nothing but false results, very poetic language, and recently a disturbing new vocabulary that includes intervals that need to be "deflowered" before they can be "coupled". His descent into madness in front of everyone's eyes here is frightening to watch..

Jim Burns schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. September 2021 um 00:33:30 UTC+2:

> If there is no last end segment of all end segments,
> then the intersection of all end segments is

Then there is no "all endsegments". "All" can only be proved by showing the last.

Regards, WM

William schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. September 2021 um 02:22:26 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
>
> > If you have an unwritable object, how do you find out that it is an element of |N_F? If you have two objects, how can you find out that they differ and in what way?
> We know that an element that you cannot write down of |N_F exists,

We know only that if actual infinity is a meaningful notion dark or unwritable or undefinable elements exist.

> and from the fact that every element has a successor (even elements you cannot write down, this is a property of an element of |N_F, another property shared by every element of |N_F is that no element of |N_F is equal to its successor) we know there are two elements that you cannot write down that are not the same.

That is a general property. But my question was: If you have two objects, how can you find out that they differ and in what way?

> Your insistence that only elements with the property "can be written down" have knowable properties is silly.

My question continues: How can you have or be in possession of two undefinable objects?

Regards, WM

Serg io schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. September 2021 um 06:26:47 UTC+2:
> On 9/7/2021 2:01 PM, WM wrote:
> > Serg io schrieb am Dienstag, 7. September 2021 um 20:56:00 UTC+2:

> >>> But how do you know that n is a natural number if you can't define it.
> >> you simply say "n is a natural number".
> >
> > But you can check that its second row is empty and its upper left corner is no vertex.
> >
> n doesn't need a "row" nor a "vertex" to be a natural number,

On the contrary. Objects which have rows or vertices are with certainty no natural numbers. So your simply saying "n is a natural number" is nonsense.

Regards, WM

zelos...@gmail.com schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. September 2021 um 07:07:01 UTC+2:
> tisdag 7 september 2021 kl. 20:47:43 UTC+2 skrev WM:

> >Mathematics needs physical abilities to be practiced
> We do not need to be able to write everything down to argue about them!

And you refrain also from thinking, as it appears.

Regards, WM

On 9/8/2021 2:43 PM, WM wrote:
> William schrieb am Mittwoch, 8. September 2021 um 02:22:26 UTC+2:
>> On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-3, WM wrote:
>>
>>> If you have an unwritable object, how do you find out that it is an element of |N_F? If you have two objects, how can you find out that they differ and in what way?
>> We know that an element that you cannot write down of |N_F exists,
>
> *We* know only that if actual infinity is a meaningful notion dark or unwritable or undefinable elements exist.

do not use the royal WE, use I instead, your failed math is a disgrace, it is your math not anyone else's.

>
>> and from the fact that every element has a successor (even elements you cannot write down, this is a property of an element of |N_F, another property shared by every element of |N_F is that no element of |N_F is equal to its successor) we know there are two elements that you cannot write down that are not the same.
>
> That is a general property. But my question was: If you have two objects, how can you find out that they differ and in what way?

call one a, the other b.

>
>> Your insistence that only elements with the property "can be written down" have knowable properties is silly.
>
> My question continues: How can you have or be in possession of two undefinable objects?

you have 2 rocks in your pocket that you have not identified with barcode, what do you do ?

>
> Regards, WM
>