Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: ? 533 Proof
Replies: 8   Last Post: Aug 4, 2014 1:55 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Ben Bacarisse Posts: 1,972 Registered: 7/4/07
Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:33 AM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de writes:

> On Sunday, 3 August 2014 23:48:21 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>

>> You have Shown this For Sets of All Finite Cardinalities.
>> You have Not Shown that this is True of N itself.

>
> Nobody can show anything for N itself. All proofs in set theory apply
> all natural numbers only.

No, that is a distinction you've made up to get the results you want.
In set theory, properties can be proved about N itself. For example
whether it is or is not equal to some other set:

{1,2,3} =/= N
{ n c N | n > 3 \/ n < 4 } = N
image(f) = N where f(x) = x

You reject this (you've said that WMaths can't prove properties of such
sets) but at the same time you assert the functions like f(x) = x + 1
(from Z to Z) and g(x) = x^3 (from R to R) are bijections. This is why
you must never show how you prove that these functions are, indeed,
bijections. (Well, at least until you can re-define "bijection" so as
to avoid having to show that no elements are missing from the image.)

In set theory, any of the often cited enumerations of Q+ have the
provable property that image(e) = Q+ and domain(e) = N.

<snip>
--
Ben.

Date Subject Author
8/4/14 Ben Bacarisse
8/4/14 Tanu R.
8/4/14 Tucsondrew@me.com
8/4/14 Tanu R.
8/4/14 Virgil
8/4/14 Tanu R.