trial number one.

[Messenger]

Of course you will back up your claim and give me a number (let's represent it by m) so that m is a real number, m < 2, and for all n for which (n > 1 and n<2) : m > n

But you may as well not bother since whatever m you choose I'll nominate n=m+(2-m)/2

There no such number as this criteria is infinite
I don't see how that prove anything  

[bowmore]

Of course you will back up your claim and give me a number (let's represent it by m) so that m is a real number, m < 2, and for all n for which (n > 1 and n<2) : m > n

But you may as well not bother since whatever m you choose I'll nominate n=m+(2-m)/2

There no such number as this criteria is infinite
I don't see how that prove anything  

It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

[Messenger]

It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

Infinite sets does not have an upper bound, so what?

How does this proves that infinite real objects can exist?

[bowmore]

It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

Infinite sets does not have an upper bound, so what?

You really don't read my posts, do you.
infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers

How does this proves that infinite real objects can exist?

Are you not keeping up with this thread?

a brief history:

me : removing one element from an infinite set leaves an infinite set
you : prove it!
me : Cantor proved it for me.
you : No he didn't!
me : Explain Cantor's proof.
you : Cantor's wrong : objection : infinite sets cannot have integers as upper bounds
me : Give counterexample for your objection : 2 is upper bound of infinite set ]1,2[

**discussion of example**

you : agree with counterexample, but : So what, it doesn't prove infinities can be actual.

That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Fact remains that you disregard the mathematical properties of infinities when you talk about actual infinities in your argument, which was my objection.

[Messenger]

That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Yes, that is by definition of the mathematical term

What this got to do with reality?

[bowmore]

That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Yes, that is by definition of the mathematical term

What this got to do with reality?

Again this is not why I posted it. I documented my objection, being that you dismiss the mathematical properties of infinity when you speak of it in your argument. So unless you can justify the dismissal, I must reject your proof.

Note that again you seem to make the mistake of assuming I assert the opposite of your argument's conclusion. I don't. Please read my posts.