Date: Dec 15, 2012 7:30 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: On the infinite binary Tree
In article

<a8ae723e-8a3c-474a-97d3-5bf5b9d56efc@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 14 Dez., 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>> Note that the very definition of countability requires that a set

>> can be declared countable ONLY if one can demonstrate the existence

>> of a surjection from the set of naturals to that set or an injection

from that set to the set of naturals.

> If that were correct, there was probably no contradiction. At least it

> was not as easy to see. But it is not correct. We have another measure

> for countability, namely: every subset of a countable set is

> countable.

It may be a "measure", whatever that means, and validly establish

countability of subsets of a countable set, or uncountability of

supersets of an uncountable set, but it is not the definition of

countability.

And showing that a set is a subset of a set that has been shown to be

countable shows indirectly that the required surjection or injection

must exist.

So that WM loses again!

--