Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Virgil
Posts:
6,993
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 30, 2012 1:00 AM


In article <1dd42260760a4366a55b7810051f202b@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> They're related concepts in establishing that, to the asymptotic, it > can be established the size of proper subsets of the integers, > relative to the integers. Half of the integers are even.
And there are exactly as many of them which are even as there are of them altogether!
> Here having infinitely many elements between zero and one, given their > constant difference, is enough to have them be dense as in the reals.
Again nonsense! Any set of numbers having "constant difference" between successive members will fail to be dense in the reals or even "as in the reals". > > Then density as a quantity and density as a property aren't the same > thing, yet, they both are to denote the propensity of elements within > others of theirs.
Would you restate that in coherent English. please? 



