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 � 300
Replies: 14   Last Post: Jul 23, 2013 1:31 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: WMYtheology Sucks
Posted: Jul 21, 2013 4:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 05:06:42 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> In article <>, wrote: > On Saturday, 20 July 2013 21:31:03 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

>>> Any countable set can be listed without inclusion of any non-members.

> > at least if not

> Since the definition of "countable" requires the ability to surject |N to the the collection of whatever is alleged to be countable, there is no |not if".

The rationals are countable. If written in the Binary Tree just these aleph_0 elements remain aleph_0 elements, don't they? Do the rational points of the unit interval have a cardinality aleph_0? You think so.

But the rationals written in the Binary Tree create a set of cardinality larger than aleph_0. That is not of this world. It is


Regards, WM

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.