Re: Cantor and the binary tree

Robert Kolker said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>
> >
> > The subsequent conclusion that the reals are not "countable" rests on the
> > notion that all countably infinite sets are the same size, which is an
> > assumption that I reject for many reasons, and which has no justification
> > besides "oo=oo=oo".
>
> Will you stop this sloppy nonsense and listen. Let two sets A, B be in
> one to one correspondence with the integers N by the mappings f and g
> respecitive then f : N ->A, g : N ->B. since f and b are bijections
> f_inverse maps A to N and the composition (g(f_inverse)) maps A onto B
> in a 1-1 fashion which means A is equivalent to B. QED.
>
> Now go away and learn some mathematics.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>
That's all very well and good, if you specify f anf g and figure those
functions into your comparison. It's a mistake to ignore them.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... Robert Kolker said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> little axiom cave whenever questioned. ... > mathematics on which physics is based, which in turn has produced the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
    ... Robert Kolker said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... Some assumed truths ... to resolve contradiction as we go along, by placing concepts within an ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... Robert Kolker said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> Well, by everyone's need to make the naturals a set of finite numbers, and my ... Yes Bob I've heard that before about a million times. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... Robert Kolker said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> mapping functions and then disregarding them at infinity. ... > Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors Theory sucks
    ... Robert Kolker said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... > nourished by the real world, but mathematics -as such- as no emprical ... math is an abstraction from reality. ...
    (sci.math)