Sujet : Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 14. Dec 2024, 17:28:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <7303a6a35e6e0c1a11e365336ca466efea73b49c@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
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:06:04 +0100 schrieb WM:
On 14.12.2024 16:22, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 13 Dec 2024 09:42:36 +0100 schrieb WM:
The subset is considered as its own independent set D = {10n | n ∈ ℕ}
and then it is attached to the set ℕ = {1, 2, 3, ...}. That does not
change the subset.
It changes the set from D to N and thus the function.
It changes the set from D to a subset of ℕ with same number of elements
and proves that it cannot be changed to ℕ.
Oh, so your prepended function IS the identity D->D after all.
-- 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.
Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)
Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary)