Re: CH Question
From: Robert Low (mtx014_at_linux.services.coventry.ac.uk)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: Immortalist: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- In reply to: Chris Menzel: "Re: CH Question"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: CH Question"
- Reply: Mike Oliver: "Re: CH Question"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: CH Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Oct 2004 18:06:35 GMT
Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On 23 Oct 2004 13:28:52 GMT, Robert Low <mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk>
>> Ah, I (think I) see now: you're looking for a set whose
>> cardinality is strictly greater than aleph_0 but not obviously
>> at least as big as 2^aleph_0.
>> I can't think of one of them offhand. (And given a candidate,
>> people may well disagree about what is obvious.)
>Do you think it is obvious that aleph_1 is at least as big as 2^aleph_0?
No. But there's more than one possible explanation for that,
of course.
All I meant was that I couldn't think (offhand) of a set built
up out of familiar objects which *I* found obviously bigger
than N and not obviously at least as big as R. (My suggestion,
the set of continuous real valued functions of a real variable, is
clearly at least as big as R: the surprise is that it isn't
bigger.)
-- Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
- Next message: Immortalist: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Eternal Verities"
- In reply to: Chris Menzel: "Re: CH Question"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: CH Question"
- Reply: Mike Oliver: "Re: CH Question"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: CH Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|