Sujet : Re: A paradox about Cantor's set theory
De : wolfgang.mueckenheim (at) *nospam* tha.de (WM)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 12. Mar 2024, 10:42:38
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <usp4hu$6i2f$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10.03.2024 18:38, Mike Terry wrote:
The quote is about comparing the sizes of sets, right? So we have two sets:
S1 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}
S2 = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...}
When Cantor/set theory says they are the same size, that is saying that there is a 1-1 correspondence [one-to-one correspondence] between the elements of the set.
And that is a lie as most easily is proved by disproving the correspondence between natural numbers n/1 and positive fractions:
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
XOOO...
...
Lossless swaps are lossless.
Regards, WM
A paradox about Cantor's set theory
Re: A paradox about Cantor's set theory