Sujet : Re: Contradiction of bijections as a measure for infinite sets
De : FTR (at) *nospam* nomail.afraid.org (FromTheRafters)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 05. Apr 2024, 13:57:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Peripheral Visions
Message-ID : <uuosft$1cq33$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
WM explained on 4/4/2024 :
Le 03/04/2024 à 15:59, FromTheRafters a écrit :
WM presented the following explanation :
Le 02/04/2024 à 17:51, Jim Burns a écrit :
On 4/2/2024 3:36 AM, WM wrote:
>
If your assumption leads to "no bijection",
but there is a bijection,
then your assumption is wrong.
>
My trick proves that there is no bijection.
Or could you explain why first bijecting n and n/1 should destroy an existing bijection?
Your 'trick' only fails to demonstrate a bijection. Failing to demonstrate a bijection does not mean that there is no bijection, only that your 'trick' doesn't work to that end.
>
Explain why first bijecting n and n/1 should destroy an existing bijection!
You still seem to think that sets change. If you mean 'n' is an element of the naturals then of course N bijects with the naturals as embedded in Q. Also, the complement of the naturals over one in Q is the same size as the proper subset you created. No sets (read also functions) were destroyed.
…