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




Re: WMYtheology Sucks
Posted:
Jul 21, 2013 4:38 AM


On Sunday, 21 July 2013 05:06:42 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > In article <83fe7898a53d411f863de8ae292cf5f1@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > On Saturday, 20 July 2013 21:31:03 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
>>> Any countable set can be listed without inclusion of any nonmembers.
> > 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
MATHEOLOGY.
Regards, WM



