Oops, I see, thanks!

I don't understand the one with dont(). Why does i.get() end up false at the end? Shouldn't it be true after having been set by dont()?

Oh, that would make more sense, yeah.

This sounds a lot like the game played by the International Kriegsspiel Society (https://kriegsspiel.org/), which I think is worth noting in terms of other implementations of the same idea.

(Why do I not just say "This sounds a lot like Kriegsspiel?" Because there's so many different varieties of Kriegsspiel, not all of which work like this, so I'm pointing to a particular one that does.)

> But add a smaller cardinal to one of the new infinities, and “they kind of blow up,” Bagaria said. “This is a phenomenon that had never appeared before.”

I have to wonder just what is meant by this, because in ZFC, a sum of just two (or any finite number) of cardinals can't "blow up" like this; you need an infinite sum. I mean, presumably they're referring to such an infinite sum, but they don't really explain, and they make it sound like it's just adding two even though that can't be what is meant.

(In ZFC, if you add two cardinals, of which at least one is infinite, the sum will always be equal to the maximum of the two. Indeed, the same is true for multiplication, as long as neither of the cardinals is zero. And of course both of these extend to any finite sum. To get interesting sums or products that involve infinite cardinals, you need infinitely many summands or factors.)