Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Cantor's first proof,
Replies: 44   Last Post: Nov 16, 2012 6:01 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,528
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Cantor's first proof,
Posted: Nov 15, 2012 6:41 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Uirgil <uirgil@uirgil.ur> writes:

> In article
> <00fb105b-9905-4f2c-a731-6b001f3980c6@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Nov 14, 5:22 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>

>> > Is there a bijection from N to N?
>>
>>
>> Note that in http://arxiv.org/pdf/math.GM/0305310
>> WM states explicitly that there is no bijection from N to N

>
> How does WM justify claiming that the identity function on N is NOT
> bijective?


Ah, simple. N is an "impossible set" (not a term he defines but why get
bogged down in detail like that). The argument is simple: if you try to
enumerate N you can construct a diagonal that is not in N; indeed it's
not even a natural number. By WMlogic, this means that you have to
include this non-number in N if you are to claim and enumeration of N.
Thus you can't have an enumeration of *only* the elements of N.

It's one of the silliest things I've read for some time, and it's making
me revise my option. I thought WM was "having a laugh" by devising
arguments he knew to be false, just to see how far he push it, but this
is so silly it's hard to see it in that light. Maybe he really thinks
like this.

> Does he also claim that identity functions on finite sets can fail to be
> bijective?


No.

--
Ben.


Date Subject Author
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Ben Bacarisse
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
David R Tribble
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
William Hughes
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
LudovicoVan
11/16/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/15/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof,
Uirgil

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.