From:  Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Date:  30 Aug 2024 21:01:41 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.alt119.net/sci.logic
Subject:  

Re: Replacement of Cardinality

NNTP-Posting-Host:  null

On 8/30/24 8:55 AM, WM wrote:
> Le 29/08/2024 à 20:51, "Chris M. Thomasson" a écrit :
>> On 8/29/2024 6:27 AM, WM wrote:
>>> Le 29/08/2024 à 01:48, Richard Damon a écrit :
> 
>>>> You just can't count them from the "end" that doesn't have an end.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> Because it does not have an end.
> 
> 0 lies below the end. Hence there is an end, even if you cannot see it.
> 
> Regards, WM
> 
> 

No, there does not need to be an "end" for an infinite sequence in that 
sequence.

0 is not "below" the end, but IS the end for the unit fractions, as we 
can get as close to it as we want with a unit fraction.

A sequence whose end is not in the sequence doesn't have an end in the 
sequence.