Liste des Groupes | Revenir à math |
On 10/8/24 6:22 AM, WM wrote:In the sense of, there are infinitely many evens and odds... Just like there are infinitely many natural numbers. The infinite "pool" to draw from, in a sense. Classifying a number (even odd) from an infinite pool of them does not magically make the infinite suddenly become finite by any means...On 07.10.2024 18:11, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Which just shows that you logic system is based on contradictory definitions and has blown itself up in them, because you have a bad definition for "size" of an infinite set.What I should have>
written (WM please take note) is:
>
The idea of one countably infinite set being "bigger" than another
countably infinite set is simply nonsense.
The idea is supported by the fact that set A as a superset of set B is bigger than B. Simply nonsense is the claim that there are as many algebraic numbers as prime numbers. For Cantor's enumeration of all fractions I have given a simple disproof.
>
Regards, WM
>
By your logic, a set can be bigger than a set with just the same number of elements. BOOOM
Simple example, look at the set of the integers {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} and the set of the even numbers {2, 4, 6, 8, ...}
By your logic the even set must be smaller, but we can transform the set of integers to a set of the same size by replacing every element with twice itself (an operation that can't affect its size) and we get that same set of even numbers.
Thus the set of even numbers (obtained by doubling the integers) is the same set as the set of even numbers (obtained by removing the odd integers) but is bigger than it.
Yes, there are other forms of mathematics where the set of even numbers is smaller than the set of the integers, but in those mathematics you can't do other things, like replace a set with another set of exactly the same size by changing all the values, but that isn't your mathematics either, yours has just gone BOOM because it got "too full" with an infinite set.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.