Re: infinity ...
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:41:15 -0600
In article <1129946611.902596.262670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"William Hughes" <wpihughes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dave Rusin wrote:
> > In article <1129901285.084347.34810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > William Hughes <wpihughes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes all sets have a cardinality.
> >
> > That's your Choice.
>
> Am I assuming AC here?
>
> My understanding was that, while AC was needed to
> put a total ordering on the equivalence classes
> under bijection, one could assert the existence
> of these classes even without AC. Or are the
> cardinalities defined not as all possible
> equivalence classes but as the equivalence classes
> on the ordinals?
>
> -William Hughes
As I understand it, without AC, one cannot be sure of creating any sort
of function at all from one arbitrary set to another, much less
guarantee that such a function, even if creatable, be an injection or a
surjection.
.
- References:
- Re: infinity ...
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity ...
- From: albstorz
- Re: infinity ...
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity ...
- From: Dave Rusin
- Re: infinity ...
- Prev by Date: monotone sequences
- Next by Date: Re: Inverse functions.
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity ...
- Next by thread: Re: infinity ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|