In article <email@example.com>, "LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Virgil" <email@example.com> wrote in message > news:virgil-64B530.firstname.lastname@example.org... > > In article <email@example.com>, > > "LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <email@example.com> wrote in message > >> news:virgil-3479E2.firstname.lastname@example.org... > >> > In article > >> > <email@example.com>, > >> > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> <snip> > >> > >> >> Infinity and infinity is infinity. Infinity minus infinity can be > >> >> infinity too. That's what Cantor missed: After each of infinitely many > >> >> numbers there are infinitely many numbers. > >> > > >> > After taking infinitely many naturals in their natual order there are > >> > no > >> > naturals left still to be taken. > >> > >> For every ball removed, 10 more get in... Your math is a fraud. > > > > If you think > > Stop lying: I have *proved*, while you haven't.
What is it that you are claiming to have proved? > > > there are any balls left in the vase at t = 0 then there > > must be a ball with the smallest number of those left in the vase, since > > the well-ordering of |N requires that every non-empty subset of |N has a > > first(smallest) number in it. > > > > So unless you can name for us that smallest natural on a ball left in > > the vase at t = 0, you lose! > > It is not N that is left *at* time t=0. Stop lying.
It is all of N that has been removed from the vase at t = 0, but not until t = 0.
Otherwise you should be able to name one of the numbers that you think is left in the vase fort t >= 0.