In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> For Dedekind defined infinite sets as those that could be put into one- > one correlation with proper subsets of themselves, so the criteria for > 'same number' bifurcate: if any two such infinite sets were numerable, > then while, because of the correlation, their numbers would be the > same, still, because there are items in the one not in the other, > their numbers would be different. Hence such 'sets' are not numerable, > and one-one correlation does not equate with equal numerosity [...] > > [H. Slater: "The Uniform Solution of the Paradoxes" (2004)]
If this is supposed to confound the possibility of on-to-one mappings between infinite sets, it fails.
And if "equal numerousity" is not the same as bijectability, it has no meaning at all. --