Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,289
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted: Aug 4, 2014 11:33 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.