The Math Forum

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: Only for mathematicians!
Replies: 3   Last Post: Aug 18, 2014 7:27 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: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Only for mathematicians!
Posted: Aug 17, 2014 11:40 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Saturday, 16 August 2014 21:49:03 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> | can you show a formula of set theory involving your bijection f form Z
>> | to Z (f(x) = x + 1) which is false in set theory and true with the
>> | correct "interpretation of infinity"? (Or vice versa of course.)

> It is not easy to find a difference between a bijection that is
> claimed an actually infinite set and a potentially infinite bijection
> between two equal sets. That's the reason why set theory could exist
> for such a long time! The striking argument was always the
> countability of |N "by definition" and in the potential sense.

I thought not.

> Therefore I have applied two different sets. If actual infinity is
> assumed, then one of the sets gets exhausted before the other. This is
> a result of mathematics, but onlz if infinitz is actual. Otherwise we
> have the bijection going on and on. But such a set would never supply
> an anti-diagonal or a complete list of all algebraics. It is this
> subtle switching infinities that has gone unnoticed for such a long
> time.

Same mathematics, different words.


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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.