Re: Cardinality of Real Numbers
- From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:30:20 -0300
In <1125251641.615664.93900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on
08/28/2005
at 10:54 AM, jswimr3@xxxxxxxxx said:
>The mapping works like this: for each integer, map it onto all the
>reals you can get by putting a decimal point anywhere in it.
That's not a mapping from N->R, it's a mapping from N->2^R.
>It seems like this would cover the full set of real numbers.
No, it wouldn't even cover all of the rational numbers.
>But it seems
Seems isn't good enough. Try to actually do it.
>like you could get around that by making a new rule,
No. But feel free to devise such a new rule.
>for example, that real numbers which begin with 1 would map to the
>numbers they would normally map to, but would also map to decimals
>where the 1 is turned into a zero.
That still covers only a subset of the rationals.
>So where did I go wrong?
By confusing your faulty intuition with a proof.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Cardinality of Real Numbers
- From: jswimr3
- Cardinality of Real Numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: Cardinality of Real Numbers
- Next by thread: Volterra integral equation of the first kind
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|