Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
stephen_at_nomail.com
Date: 02/10/05
- Next message: Paul Holbach: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: The counterexamples to FLT"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 10 Feb 2005 21:27:54 GMT
In sci.math Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@cornell.edu> wrote:
: Or, you can simply admit that there are more real numbers between 0 and
: 2 than there are between 0 and 1, even if the "cardinality" is the same,
: for instance, 1.5.
: --
: Smiles,
: Tony
Whoever said that there were not numbers in [0,2] that were not in [0,1]?
What is true is that every element in [0,1] can be uniquely mapped to
an element in [0,2]. Why won't you simply admit that? :)
Stephen
- Next message: Paul Holbach: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: The counterexamples to FLT"
- In reply to: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|