How many unnatural numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the
sequence

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result
2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?

Regards, WM

It happens that WM formulated :
> How many unnatural numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the
> sequence
>
> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result
> 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?

Could you explain how your 'unnatural number' system works?

Am 31.03.2024 um 14:22 schrieb WM:

> How many [new] numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the sequence
>
> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?

Actually, none.

Why? Because no number is "created" this way which wasn't already there.

Hint: {2n : n e IN} c IN and 2ω = ω.

Hence {2, 4, 6, ... 2ω} = {2n : n e {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω} c {1, 2, 3,
4, 5, ... ω}, where {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω} = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...} u {ω}
= IN u {ω} and {2, 4, 6, ... 2ω} = {2, 4, 6, ...} u {2ω} = {2n : n e IN}
u {2ω}.

--
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com

Moebius schrieb:

> ...

> --
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com

Warum teilst du der Welt immer wieder mit dass deine "E-Mail" geprüft wurde?
;)

Am 31.03.2024 um 17:12 schrieb Tom Bola:
> Moebius schrieb:
>
>> ...
>
>> --
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com
>
> Warum teilst du der Welt immer wieder mit dass deine "E-Mail" geprüft wurde?
> ;)

Keine Ahnung. Schadet aber auch nicht, oder? :-)

Gleich kommt's wieder!
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

--
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com

Moebius schrieb:
> Am 31.03.2024 um 17:12 schrieb Tom Bola:
>> Moebius schrieb:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>> --
>>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
>>> www.avast.com
>>
>> Warum teilst du der Welt immer wieder mit dass deine "E-Mail" geprüft wurde?
>> ;)
>
> Keine Ahnung. Schadet aber auch nicht, oder? :-)

Nein, das nicht, aber man hat ja eine heutzutage natürliche Aversion
gegen permanent (und auch noch die gleiche) Werbung...
> Gleich kommt's wieder!
> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

;)

Le 31/03/2024 à 13:26, FromTheRafters a écrit :
> It happens that WM formulated :
>> How many unnatural numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the
>> sequence
>>
>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result
>> 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?
>
> Could you explain how your 'unnatural number' system works?

If all doubled natural numbers remain smaller than ω, then the infinite
space between ω and 2ω remains empty. If the doubling creates these
numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ..., then they are no longer natural numbers.
What is going on?

Regards, WM

Le 31/03/2024 à 14:06, Moebius a écrit :
> Am 31.03.2024 um 14:22 schrieb WM:
>
>> How many [new] numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the sequence
>>
>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?
>
> Actually, none.
>
> Why? Because no number is "created" this way which wasn't already there.
>
> Hint: {2n : n e IN} c IN and 2ω = ω.

Nonsense. Cantor said 2ω is ω + ω =/= ω.

> Hence

Wrong argument.

Regards, WM

WM expressed precisely :
> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:26, FromTheRafters a écrit :
>> It happens that WM formulated :
>>> How many unnatural numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the
>>> sequence
>>>
>>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result
>>> 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?
>>
>> Could you explain how your 'unnatural number' system works?
>
> If all doubled natural numbers remain smaller than ω, then the infinite space
> between ω and 2ω remains empty. If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2,
> ω+4, ω+6, ..., then they are no longer natural numbers.
> What is going on?

They are the second, fourth, and sixth transfinite ordinals.

Am 01.04.2024 um 17:27 schrieb WM:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 14:06, Moebius a écrit :
>> Am 31.03.2024 um 14:22 schrieb WM:
>>>
>>> How many [new] numbers are created by multiplying all terms of the
>>> sequence
>>>
>>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?
>>>
>> Actually, none.
>>
>> Why? Because no number is "created" this way which wasn't already there.
>>
>> Hint: {2n : n e IN} c IN and 2ω = ω.
>>
> Nonsense.

No, not nonsense, Mückenheim.

> Cantor said 2ω is ω + ω =/= ω.

He only said that in the early years of set theory, later he corrected
himself:

>> Anmerkung von Zermelo [3] Zu S. 195. Hier und im folgenden stellt
>> Cantor den Multiplikator voran und schreibt 2ω für ω + ω; in der
>> späteren systematischen Darstellung III 9 stellt er umgekehrt den
>> Multiplikandus voran und schreibt ω2, was aus Gründen der Analogie
>> entschieden vorzuziehen ist, weil auch bei der Addition nur der zweite
>> Summand (der Addendus), wenn er endlich ist, die transfinite Summe
>> modifiziert, vergrößert. Vgl. S. 302, 322.
>>
>> Cantor 1884: Ich habe in den "Grundlagen" den Multiplikator links, den
>> Multiplikandus rechts geschrieben; es hat sich mir aber gezeigt, daß
>> der entgegengesetzte Gebrauch, den Multipikandus links zuerst und dann
>> rechts den Multiplikator zu schreiben, für die weitere Entwicklung der
>> transfiniten Ordnungszahlenlehre der zweckmäßigere, ja fast
>> unentbehrliche ist; aus diesem Grunde kehre ich also die betreffende
>> Schreibweise der "Grundlagen", soweit sie sich auf Produkte bezieht,
>> von jetzt ab immer um.

Wie dumm kann man eigentlich sein, Mückenheim?

Also nochmal, vielleicht verstehst Du es ja jetzt besser:

| No number is "created" this way which wasn't already there.
| | Hint: {2n : n e IN} c IN and 2ω = ω.
| | Hence {2, 4, 6, ... 2ω} = {2n : n e {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω} c {1, 2, 3,
4, 5, ... ω}.

Am 01.04.2024 um 17:14 schrieb WM:
> Le 31/03/2024 à 13:26, FromTheRafters a écrit :
>> It happens that WM formulated :
>>> How many unnatural numbers are created by multiplying all terms of
>>> the sequence
>>>
>>> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... ω by 2 with the result
>>> 2, 4, 6, ... 2ω?
>>
>> Could you explain how your 'unnatural number' system works?
>
> If all doubled natural numbers remain smaller than ω,

which they do (hint: An e IN: n < ω and hence An e IN: 2n < ω since An e
IN: 2n e IN)

> then the infinite space between ω and 2ω

There is no "infinite space between ω and 2ω" since ω = 2ω.

It seems that you are mixing up 2ω with ω2.

> If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...,

It doesn't.

> then <whatever>
>
> What is going on?

Ex falso quod libet, that's going on, Mückenheim.

Le 01/04/2024 à 17:48, Moebius a écrit :
> Am 01.04.2024 um 17:14 schrieb WM:

If all are doubled, then many are new.
>
> There is no "infinite space between ω and 2ω" since ω = 2ω.
>
> It seems that you are mixing up 2ω with ω2.

So did Cantor until 1884.
>
>> If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...,
>
> It doesn't.

Einfach über hinwegzählen.

Regards, WM

Am 02.04.2024 um 09:23 schrieb WM:
> Le 01/04/2024 à 17:48, Moebius a écrit :
>>
>> It seems that you are mixing up 2ω with ω2.
>>
> So did Cantor until 1884.

So what?! Using erroneous notions is a hobby of yours?

>>> If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...,
>>>
>> It doesn't.
>>
> Einfach über hinwegzählen.

Hint: You aren't Cantor nor Hilbert. You are just a silly crank.

1. "doubling" is not counting

2. doubling the (infinitely many) natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... results
in the (infinitely many) natural numbers 2, 4, 6, ...

3. multipliying the (single) ordinal number ω with 2 from left results
in the (single) ordinal sumber ω, multipliying the (single) ordinal
number ω with 2 from right results in the (single) ordinal sumber ω2.
(Hint: 2ω =/= ω2.)

4. Hence {2x : x e {1, 2, 3, 4, ... ω}} = {2x : x e {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} u
{ω}} = {2, 4, 6, 8, ...} u {2ω} = {2, 4, 6, 8, ...} u {ω} = {2, 4, 6, 8,
.... w} and {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, 4, ... ω}} = {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}
u {ω}} = {2, 4, 6, 8, ...} u {ω2} = {2, 4, 6, 8, ... w2}.

5. ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ... !e {2, 4, 6, 8, ... ω} and ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ... !e
{2, 4, 6, 8, ... ω2} since (a) for all n e {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}: n < ω < ω2
and hence for all n e {2, 4, 6, 8, ...}: n < ω < ω2 and (b) ω, ω2 !e {
ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...}. (Hint: ω < ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ω+4, ... < ω + ω = ω2.)

6. Geht's noch dümmer, Mückenheim?

Hint: {2x : x e {1, 2, 3, ω}} = {2, 4, 6, ω} and {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, ω}}
= {2, 4, 6, ω2}.

Le 03/04/2024 à 11:00, Moebius a écrit :
> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:23 schrieb WM:
>> Le 01/04/2024 à 17:48, Moebius a écrit :
> >>
>>> It seems that you are mixing up 2ω with ω2.
>>>
>> So did Cantor until 1884.
>
> So what?! Using erroneous notions is a hobby of yours?

It is not erroneous but simply a matter of another definition.
>
>>>> If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...,
>>>>
>>> It doesn't.
>>>
>> Einfach über ω hinwegzählen.
>
> 1. "doubling" is not counting

Doubling is faster.
>
> 2. doubling the (infinitely many) natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... results
> in the (infinitely many) natural numbers 2, 4, 6, ...

Then you are not accepting that all natnumbers had been there already and
were doubled?
Or you believe that doubling creates the same numbers which have been
doubled?

Regards, WM

Am 03.04.2024 um 15:37 schrieb WM:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 11:00, Moebius a écrit :
>> Am 02.04.2024 um 09:23 schrieb WM:
>>> Le 01/04/2024 à 17:48, Moebius a écrit :
>>  >>
>>>> It seems that you are mixing up 2ω with ω2.
>>>>
>>> So did Cantor until 1884.
>>
>> So what?! Using erroneous notions is a hobby of yours?
>>
> It is not erroneous but simply a matter of another definition.

Using non-standard definitions does not help your case, Mückenheim.

So let's stick to the usual definitions when using set theoretic notions
/ discussing _set theory_, idiot!

Hint: In set theory: 2ω = ω and w < ω + ω = ω2.

>>>>> If the doubling creates these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ...,
>>>> It doesn't.

>> Doubling the (infinitely many) natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... results
>> in the (infinitely many) natural numbers 2, 4, 6, ...
>
> Then you are not accepting that all natnumbers had been there already
> and were doubled?

Sure, I do.

> Or you believe that doubling [results in] the same numbers which have been
> doubled?

Some of them, yes.

Hint: 1, 2, 3, 4 -- * 2 --> 2, 4, 6, 8

Got it?! 2 and 4 were "already there" before doubling.

Now 2IN = {2n : n e IN} c IN.

EOD

Am 01.04.2024 um 19:35 schrieb FromTheRafters:
> WM expressed precisely :

>> these numbers ω+2, ω+4, ω+6, ..., are no natural numbers. What is going on?
>
> They are the second, fourth, and sixth transfinite ordinals.

Not quite. I mean, usually we would say

| ω is the first, ω+1 is the second, ω+2 is the third ... transfinite
ordinal

Of course, using the ordinals themselves you might state

| ω is the 0-th, ω+1 is the 1-th, ω+2 is the 2-th ... transfinite ordinal

On the other hand: "Did he win the 0-th prize?" Who would say that?

Le 03/04/2024 à 17:46, Moebius a écrit :
> Am 03.04.2024 um 15:37 schrieb WM:
>
>> Or you believe that doubling [results in] the same numbers which have been
>> doubled?
>
> Some of them, yes.
>
> Hint: 1, 2, 3, 4 -- * 2 --> 2, 4, 6, 8
>
> Got it?! 2 and 4 were "already there" before doubling.

Of course, but many were not. For instance ω+ω.

Regards, WM

Am 04.04.2024 um 11:35 schrieb WM:
> Le 03/04/2024 à 17:46, Moebius a écrit :
>> Am 03.04.2024 um 15:37 schrieb WM:
>>
>>> Or you believe that doubling [results in] the same numbers which have
>>> been doubled?
>>
>> Some of them, yes.
>>
>> Hint: 1, 2, 3, 4 -- * 2 --> 2, 4, 6, 8
>>
>> Got it?! 2 and 4 were "already there" before doubling.
>
> Of course, but many were not. For instance ω+ω.

Nein, nicht "many", Mückenheim, sondern genau _eine_ Zahl. nämlich ω2 = ω+ω.

Nochmal:

{1 2, 3, ... ω} = {1, 2, 3, ...} u {w} = IN u {w} mit ω !e IN.

Und daher:

{x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, ... ω}} = {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, ...} u {ω}} = {2, 4,
6, ...} u {ω2}} = {2x : x e IN} u {ω2} = G u {ω2} mit G c IN und ω2 !e
IN. (Wo G := {2x : x e IN} die Menge der geraden natürlichen Zahlen ist.)

Wie dumm kann man eigentlich sein, Mückenheim?

Le 05/04/2024 à 00:47, Moebius a écrit :
> Am 04.04.2024 um 11:35 schrieb WM:
>>
>>> Got it?! 2 and 4 were "already there" before doubling.
>>
>> Of course, but many were not. For instance ω+ω.
>
> Nein, nicht "many", Mückenheim, sondern genau _eine_ Zahl. nämlich ω2 =
> ω+ω.

You do not accept that doubling of 1, 2, 3, ... ω doubles all structures?

The interval [3, 7] of length 4 becomes the interval [6, 14] of length 8.

> Nochmal:
>
> {1 2, 3, ... ω} = {1, 2, 3, ...} u {w} = IN u {w} mit ω !e IN.
>
> Und daher:
>
> {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, ... ω}} = {x2 : x e {1, 2, 3, ...} u {ω}} = {2, 4,
> 6, ...} u {ω2}} = {2x : x e IN} u {ω2} = G u {ω2} mit G c IN und ω2 !e
> IN. (Wo G := {2x : x e IN} die Menge der geraden natürlichen Zahlen ist.)

I do not accept your claim but accept mathematics: The interval between
ℕ and ω is not longer than a natural number k. Hence the doubled
interval is not longer than 2k. Hence almost all of the infinitely many
ordinal places ω+1, ω+2, ω+3 between ω and ω+ω must be occupied by
numbers n + n, where n ∈ ℕ.

Regards, WM

Am 05.04.2024 um 10:46 schrieb WM:

> I [...] accept mathematics:

Na, wunderbar!

Dann wirst Du der Widerlegung Deines untenstehenden Quarks ja zustimmen:

> [...] almost all of the infinitely many ordinal places ω+1, ω+2, ω+3 between ω and ω+ω must be occupied by numbers n + n, where n ∈ ℕ.

Für alle n in IN ist n + n in IN.

Für alle n in IN: n < ω < ω+1 < ω+2 < ω+3 < ...

Also ist kein ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... in IN.

Also ist für kein n in IN: n + n in {ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ...}.

Einfacher formuliert, dass es vielleicht sogar ein geistesgestörter
Spinner versteht: IN enthält NUR (und alle) ENDLICHEN ORDINALZAHLEN. Das
DOPPELTE einer natürlichen Zahl ist wieder eine natürliche Zahl. Die
Zahlen ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... sind aber UNENDLICHE ORDINALZAHLEN. Was
unendlich ist, ist nicht endlich. Also ist KEINE der Zahlen ω+1, ω+2,
ω+3, ... gleich n + n (wo n eine natürliche Zahl ist).

The clown WM drivels:

> The interval between IN and ω is not longer than a natural number k.

Bullshit - because ω is not a natural number.

Moebius <moebius@example.invalid> wrote:
> Am 05.04.2024 um 10:46 schrieb WM:

>> I [...] accept mathematics:

> Na, wunderbar!

> Dann wirst Du der Widerlegung Deines untenstehenden Quarks ja zustimmen:

>> [...] almost all of the infinitely many ordinal places ω+1, ω+2, ω+3
>> between ω and ω+ω must be occupied by numbers n + n, where n ∈ ℕ.

> Für alle n in IN ist n + n in IN.

> Für alle n in IN: n < ω < ω+1 < ω+2 < ω+3 < ....

> Also ist kein ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... in IN.

> Also ist für kein n in IN: n + n in {ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ...}.

> Einfacher formuliert, dass es vielleicht sogar ein geistesgestörter
> Spinner versteht: IN enthält NUR (und alle) ENDLICHEN ORDINALZAHLEN. Das
> DOPPELTE einer natürlichen Zahl ist wieder eine natürliche Zahl. Die
> Zahlen ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... sind aber UNENDLICHE ORDINALZAHLEN. Was
> unendlich ist, ist nicht endlich. Also ist KEINE der Zahlen ω+1, ω+2,
> ω+3, ... gleich n + n (wo n eine natürliche Zahl ist).

Was du sagst ist nicht falsch, aber ... s.m. sollte eine
englischsprachige Gruppe sein.

What you're saying isn't wrong, but ... s.m. is supposed to be an
English language group.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Moebius schrieb:

> Am 05.04.2024 um 10:46 schrieb WM:
>
>> I [...] accept mathematics:
>
> Na, wunderbar!
>
> Dann wirst Du der Widerlegung Deines untenstehenden Quarks ja zustimmen:
>
>> [...] almost all of the infinitely many ordinal places ω+1, ω+2, ω+3 between ω and ω+ω must be occupied by numbers n + n, where n ∈ ℕ.
>
> Für alle n in IN ist n + n in IN.
>
> Für alle n in IN: n < ω < ω+1 < ω+2 < ω+3 < ...
>
> Also ist kein ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... in IN.
>
> Also ist für kein n in IN: n + n in {ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ...}.
>
> Einfacher formuliert, dass es vielleicht sogar ein geistesgestörter
> Spinner versteht: IN enthält NUR (und alle) ENDLICHEN ORDINALZAHLEN. Das
> DOPPELTE einer natürlichen Zahl ist wieder eine natürliche Zahl. Die
> Zahlen ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ... sind aber UNENDLICHE ORDINALZAHLEN. Was
> unendlich ist, ist nicht endlich. Also ist KEINE der Zahlen ω+1, ω+2,
> ω+3, ... gleich n + n (wo n eine natürliche Zahl ist).

WM does not get that natural numbers and limit ordinals are totally
different kind of numbers and sees all of them on a "natural line" whose
points (i.e. numbers) have distances that are measured in the unit of two
adjacent natural numbers...

Am 05.04.2024 um 13:03 schrieb Tom Bola:
> The clown WM drivels:
>
>> The interval between IN and ω is not longer than a natural number k.
>
> Bullshit - because ω is not a natural number.

Die Frage ist: Was ist ein "interval between IN and ω". Wenn man d a s
weiß, d a n n kann man sich Gedanken dazu machen, ob die Behauptung "is
not longer than a natural number k" darauf zutrifft oder nicht.

Vermutlich meint er hier aber eigentlich: "The length of the interval
between IN and ω is not larger than a natural number k."

In jedem Fall haben wir es hier wieder einmal mit einer Behauptung der
Kategorie "not even wrong" zu tun. Typisch Mückenheim halt.

Am 05.04.2024 um 13:07 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:

> What you're saying isn't wrong, but ... s.m. is supposed to be an
> English language group.

Kommt sonst die Sprachpolizei?