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:
? 529 Contradiction
Replies:
3
Last Post:
Jul 24, 2014 7:14 PM



Virgil
Posts:
10,821
Registered:
6/8/11


Re: ? 529 Contradiction
Posted:
Jul 24, 2014 4:23 PM


In article <fd0800f266a04a6a8a40d29c4321fa76@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2014 18:43:18 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > > > > You Prove that That Any Finite Number of Naturals is Incapable of is > > Incapable of forming a Bijection with Q. That's All! > > Yes, that means all. You are right. I prove that all natural numbers are not > sufficient to construct a bijection in my proof.
But others prove otherwise.
N is wellordered a la Peano, with a single nonsuccessor and for every element a unique successor.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WellOrdered wellorders Q with a single nonsuccessor and for every element a unique successor.
Can WM explain how two such identically wellordered sets can FAIL to biject? > > > > > You then you Jump to the Conclusion that the Set of Every Natural Number is > > Incapable of Forming such a Bijection. > > The set is exactly the same as that used for the construction of the complete > bijection by Cantor and his followers. N is wellordered a la Peano, with a single nonsuccessor and for every element a unique successor.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WellOrdered wellorders Q with a single nonsuccessor and for every element a unique successor.
Can WM explain how two such identically wellordered sets can FAIL to biject?
WM has not yet done so to the satisfaction of anyone other than himself!
Not even to the satisfacton of proper finitists. Of which group he is obviously not a member.  Virgil "Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)



