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: Mueckenheim's Theorema Egregium
Replies: 5   Last Post: Aug 19, 2014 12:35 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: Mueckenheim's Theorema Egregium
Posted: Aug 18, 2014 5:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Monday, 18 August 2014 19:39:18 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>> This Shows NOTHING about the Non-Existence of a Bijection from N to Q.
> It shows that there are not enough naturals to index all
> rationals.

You agree that, given S(q) = 1 / (2 floor(q) - r + 1) and B(n) = S^n(1),

Q+ = image(B)
B(p) = B(q) iff p = q
for all n c N, exists q c Q+, q = B(n)

> More is not intended.

More than the above is not required. You can't express your apparent
disagreement with set theory with anything like the clarity with which
you've expressed your agreement with it.


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.