Sujet : Re: Log i = 0
De : chris.m.thomasson.1 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 29. May 2025, 00:14:44
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <10185d4$3g1go$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/27/2025 1:13 PM, WM wrote:
On 27.05.2025 22:07, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 5/27/2025 12:34 PM, WM wrote:
On 27.05.2025 18:05, FromTheRafters wrote:
WM wrote :
On 26.05.2025 22:25, efji wrote:
Le 26/05/2025 à 16:36, WM a écrit :
That is wrong. Present mathematics simply assumes that all natural numbers can be used for counting. But that is wrong.
>
What's the point ?
It is the DEFINITION of "counting". A countable infinite set IS a set equipped with a bijection onto \N.
>
This bijection does not exist because most natural numbers cannot be distinguished as a simple argument shows.
>
Bijected elements need not be distinguished, it is enough to show a bijection.
>
You mean it is enough to believe in a bijection?
[...]
>
Either the bijection works or it doesn't. For instance, Cantor Pairing works with any unsigned integer.
It does not.
[...]
Huh? Show me one unsigned integer that Cantor Pairing does not work with? Unsigned integer to a pair, and the pair back to the unsigned integer.
Log i = 0
Re: Log i = 0