Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 10,821 Registered: 6/8/11
Posted: Jul 24, 2014 4:23 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.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 well-ordered a la Peano, with a single non-successor and for every
element a unique successor.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WellOrdered well-orders |Q with a single
non-successor and for every element a unique successor.

Can WM explain how two such identically well-ordered 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 well-ordered a la Peano, with a single non-successor and for every
element a unique successor.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WellOrdered well-orders |Q with a single
non-successor and for every element a unique successor.

Can WM explain how two such identically well-ordered 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)

Date Subject Author
7/24/14 Virgil
7/24/14 ross.finlayson@gmail.com