Sujet : Re: Contradiction of bijections as a measure for infinite sets
De : wolfgang.mueckenheim (at) *nospam* tha.de (WM)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 04. Apr 2024, 10:33:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <n4HHLvESP6YbxyE8Pjituhs1tXA@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 03/04/2024 à 15:59, FromTheRafters a écrit :
WM presented the following explanation :
Le 02/04/2024 à 17:51, Jim Burns a écrit :
On 4/2/2024 3:36 AM, WM wrote:
>
If your assumption leads to "no bijection",
but there is a bijection,
then your assumption is wrong.
>
My trick proves that there is no bijection.
Or could you explain why first bijecting n and n/1 should destroy an existing bijection?
Your 'trick' only fails to demonstrate a bijection. Failing to demonstrate a bijection does not mean that there is no bijection, only that your 'trick' doesn't work to that end.
Explain why first bijecting n and n/1 should destroy an existing bijection!
Regards, WM
…