Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 May 2005 08:04:15 -0700
mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > The definition of 'cardinality' is an equivalence class under the
> > equivalence relation of being in one to one correspondence (having
a
> > bijection from one to the other).
> >
> > Thus any set has a well defined cardinality.
> >
> Obviously this is a meaningless and self-contradictive definition,
> which easily cshould be abandoned because it (and the actual
existence
> of any infinite set) does not follow from any axiom.
A classic example of what I just wrote about a minute
ago. Mueck doesn't understand it, therefore it's
meaningless.
- Randy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: mueckenh
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- References:
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: W. Mueckenheim
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: mueckenh
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: mueckenh
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: Virgil
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- From: mueckenh
- Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Prev by Date: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Next by Date: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Previous by thread: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Next by thread: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading