The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 166
Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 30, 2012 8:56 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 166
Posted: Nov 30, 2012 4:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> 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.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.