> On Tuesday, 12 August 2014 19:09:30 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> firstname.lastname@example.org writes: >> >> > On Monday, 11 August 2014 23:00:36 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: >> > >> >> Is you Conclusion Not "There is No Bijection between N and Q? >> > >> > My conclusion is that all naturals cannot index all rationals. >> >> Can you give an example where two sets do index all of each other? > > Yes, of course. Two finite sets of equal cardinality. > >> If it is possible, in WMaths, for finite sets, and the indexing is >> proved via a one-to-one correspondence (a bijection), what is the >> difference between these finite bijections and the infinite ones (like >> those in your book)? > > There is no finished infinity.
You've said this a gazillion times. What you won't say is what this means. Obviously I knew you'd ignore my question as to whether exists x c X: not(x c image(f)) because you've painted your self into a corner with that one, but I did think you might have a go answering the other one:
| Given, say, a bijection between N and the finite string over the Latin | alphabet, can you write some formula that is true for this bijection in | the wrong theory that is set theory, but true in WMaths? (Or vice | versa, of course.) Maybe it is, in fact, the formula above?
but it seems even this is too risky for you to have a go at answering. Could it be that you don't know of any formula about such a bijection that is true in set theory and false in WMaths?
> But as I said already, ask about my proof § 533, in particular what > according to your inpression is not correct acorsing to classical > mathematics there.