|
|
Re: Matheology 203
Posted:
Feb 7, 2013 3:54 AM
|
|
On 7 Feb., 09:27, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <30e6f8dd-f487-4335-ba77-35f182b79...@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 7 Feb., 08:53, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <457d0429-33c1-46ad-9151-4f5d9dc96...@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > On 7 Feb., 05:21, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Or as Virgil would write
>
> > > > in a very lucid moment:
>
> > > > > What Cantor proved was that no list of accessible real numbers
> > > > > (accessible because listable) can include all accessible numbers,
> > > > > because any such list itself proves the existence of numbers not listed.
>
> > > > That is, Cantor proved the countable set of accessible numbers being
> > > > uncoutable.
>
> > > That may well be WM's misunderstanding but it is not an understanding.
>
> > > A number being accessible does means that it can appear in some list,
> > > but does not at all mean that all accessible numbers can appear together
> > > in a single list.
>
> > All elements of countable sets can be counted by definition, i.e.,
> > they can appear in a list.
>
> But some subsets of a set may be countable even though the set itself is
> not.
Of course, the algebraic real numbers for instance, or the definable
real numbers.
> Certainly SOME sets of reals can be counted but not every set of
> reals can be counted.
My question has been this: Why are there countable sets that are
uncountable?
Regards, WM
|
|
