Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (doubling-spaces)
De : james.g.burns (at) *nospam* att.net (Jim Burns)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 12. Nov 2024, 05:32:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <5f661228-f382-4710-8598-fd9d68ade2d4@att.net>
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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/11/2024 3:40 PM, WM wrote:
On 11.11.2024 21:09, Jim Burns wrote:
On 11/11/2024 2:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/11/2024 11:00 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/11/2024 10:38 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
Our sets do not change.
Everybody who believes that
intervals could grow in length or number
is deeply mistaken about
what our whole project is.
>
How about Banach-Tarski equi-decomposability?
>
The parts do not change.
>
Neither do my intervals [4-⅒,4+⅒] = [1/3-⅒,1/3+⅒].
When I first read that,
I thought you meant [4-⅒,4+⅒] = [1/3-⅒,1/3+⅒]
Later,
I thought you meant [4-⅒,4+⅒] ≠ [1/3-⅒,1/3+⅒]
I feel that there's a good chance that
you mean one or the other.
Would you (WM) mind saying which?