Sujet : Re: Simple enough for every reader?
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.logicDate : 05. Jul 2025, 14:42:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <96be1f004ce61fc8b6e42372d7d5238ca2e83d1e@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 05 Jul 2025 15:15:11 +0200 schrieb WM:
On 05.07.2025 10:37, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-07-04 12:32:55 +0000, WM said:
I only said: The definition of bijection requires completeness.
You: No, it doesn't.
I also said what is worng in your claim: bijection only requires that
there is one and only one element of co-domain for each element of
domain, regardless of completeness.
Bijection requires completeness of domain and codomain.
How is that not given?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.