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