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 § 176
Replies: 10   Last Post: Dec 11, 2012 12:33 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 846
Registered: 11/27/09
Re: Matheology § 176
Posted: Dec 10, 2012 6:47 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Le 10.12.2012 10:23, WM a écrit :
> Matheology § 176
> Here's a paradox of infinity noticed by Galileo in 1638. It seems that
> the even numbers are as numerous as the evens and the odds put
> together. Why? Because they can be put into one-to-one correspondence.
> The evens and odds put together are called the natural numbers. The
> first even number and the first natural number can be paired; the
> second even and the second natural can be paired, and so on. When two
> finite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence in this way,
> they always have the same number of members.
> Supporting this conclusion from another direction is our intuition
> that "infinity is infinity", or that all infinite sets are the same
> size. If we can speak of infinite sets as having some number of
> members, then this intuition tells us that all infinite sets have the
> same number of members.
> Galileo's paradox is paradoxical because this intuitive view that the
> two sets are the same size violates another intuition which is just as
> strong {{and as justified! If it is possible to put two sets A and B
> in bijection but also to put A in bijection with a proper subset of B
> and to put B in bijection with a proper subset of A, then it is insane
> to judge the first bijection as more valid than the others and to talk
> about equinumerousity of A and B.}}
> [Peter Suber: "Infinite Reflections", St. John's Review, XLIV, 2
> (1998) 1-59]
> Regards, WM

Only a disgusting dishonest crank like WM may have forgotten to quote
the conclusion of this article:

> Properly understood, the idea of a completed infinity is no longer a problem in mathematics or philosophy. It is perfectly intelligible and coherent.

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.