Re: Cantor and the binary tree



Randy Poe wrote:

> > Do you agree or disagree that the Cantor construction
> > for my mapping f is the set [-oo,1]?
>
> If Mueck actually tried to read and follow my example,
> perhaps even he would have spotted the flaw. Let's see
> if he comments on the fixed version.
>
Not so much time to read all contributions.

Of course, I agree. In
http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Infinity/MA6.
I say that the set {m, M, f} is an impossible set. This has nothing to
do with cardinality, as can be shown by the following bijection from N
on the union of the set of even numbers and the set of nongenerators
under the mapping.
f: N--> E u {non-generators under the actual mapping}.
You may try to construct any bijection. It will fail, but not because
there are too less elements in N.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast