Re: More complex numbers than reals?

Chris M. Thomasson formulated the question :

On 7/9/2024 10:30 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> writes:
 

Le 09/07/2024 à 14:37, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :
>

A mathematician, to whom this is a whole new topic, would start by
asking you what you mean by "more".  Without that, they could not
possibly answer you.

>
Good mathematicians could.
>

  So, what do you mean by "more" when applied to
sets like C and R?

>
Proper subsets have less elements than their supersets.

 Let's see if Chris is using that definition.  I think he's cleverer than
you so he will probably want to be able to say that {1,2,3} has "more"
elements than {4,5}.
 

>
I was just thinking that there seems to be "more" reals than natural numbers. Every natural number is a real, but not all reals are natural numbers.

Seems is a funny word. Does there not 'seem' to be 'more' naturals than primes? Intuition fails, these sets are of the same cardinality.

So, wrt the complex. Well... Every complex number has a x, or real component. However, not every real has a y, or imaginary component...
>
Fair enough? Or still crap? ;^o

See above.