Re: Countable and uncountable infinities.

From: Kenneth Doyle (nobody_at_notmail.com)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:49:36 GMT

Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host> wrote in
news:ccp4b0$gvt$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu:

> Unlike the
> reals in [0,1], the rationals are countable. This shows
> that uncountability is not an essential property of bounded
> infinite sets.

Right, thanks. For some reason, I was relating (bounded vs
unbounded) with (countable vs uncountable) as if they were
synonymous. I'll get over it... 

-- 
CodeCutter - good, fast and cheap; pick two.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humble pie.
    ... >> uncountability of certain sets. ... >> The second reason springs directly from the first, in that, according to ... the set of natural numbers has an order of infinite ... Speaking purely from the standpoint of cardinality, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... out that the same impradicability is the reason why Hessenberg' s proof ... there is an easily constricted bijection between |N and M_f. ... That is the definition of uncountability. ... Cantor's diagonal proof: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
    ... > Uncountability is a chimera. ... LST shows that all the relevant theories have a model ... There is a REASON WHY the model is so perversely insistent ... comprehension of the objectors in any case. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: R^2Q^2 connected?
    ... You're right, though, because I say infinite sets are equivalent. ... Then, in the signature, I refer to another thread where irrationals ... Proof obviously doesn't depend on the reals' ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast