Date: Jun 15, 2013 4:22 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 285

In article <da7afdd0-0582-4626-8e00-f58eba6d0365@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Saturday, 15 June 2013 11:01:16 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > Virgil supplied a bijection between Q and N.


Actually, I have only supplied injections each way, but, at least
outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, that is well known to be sufficient to
establish existence of bijections.
>
> He ws not the first. But a eqinumerousity requires completeness. And that is
> lacking


What sort of "completeness" is lacking?

The inclusion f(x) = x injects every n in |N to a different q in |Q.

The map g:|Q -> |N defined by
g(0) = 1, and for m, n realatively prime naturals
g(m/n) = 2^m*3^n and
g(-m/n) = 5^m*7^n
injects |Q into |N.

Thus there exist bijections between |N and |Q, at least everywhere
outside of the wild weird world of WMytheology


>
> > > > Also, I'm sure, whatever proof this is from, it's about Cardinals and
> > > > not Ordinals. Do you know the difference? > > > Answer? Do you know
> > > > the difference? > > That does not play a role in a case where we only
> > > > have to show that every enumerated rational eventually will be taken
> > > > into the well-ordered set. > Since you used "well-ordered" in that
> > > > statement it does make a difference.

>
> You seem to think that there are magic forces? I *never* leave the domain of
> finite sets (like Cantor never leaves it when enumerating something with
> finite naturals).


Then WM's set of rationals must be a finite set, in contrast to everyone
else's sets of rational, and FINITE ORDERED SETS ARE ALL WELL-ORDERED.

So in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, ALL ordered sets are
well-ordered. And are reverse well-ordered as well (every non-empty such
set has a smallest member as well as a largest member).

That certainly must make WM's topology of the real number line a bit
different, and removes any possibility of having infinite sequences or
standard sort of continuity

> In the finite domain, there is no difference.

But in WM's finite domain there is a great deal of mathematics that
simply does not take place.

Brouwer could, with difficulty and with at last the theoretical
existence of actual infiniteness, make it work.

WM, with neither an actual infinity nor any such mathematical talent as
Brouwer had, cannot come even close to making it work, so his
WMytheology is a mathematical disaster area.
--