Re: Well Ordering the Reals

David R Tribble said:
>> If your N and 2^N-1 were really different (infinite) numbers, then your
>> ...111(2) and your "unit infinity" also must be different numbers.
>

Tony Orlow wrote:
> They are. N=1:000...000. ....1111 might be considered a poorly formed version
> of N-1, but one really can't tell how that relates to 1:000...000. I am not
> sure why you say this anyway.

Because you say that your
N = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...
N = 1:000...000(2)
but that your
2^N-1 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...
2^N-1 = 0:111...111(2)

These appear to imply that
N > 2^N-1
and
N-1 = 2^N-1, so N = 2^N
which are contradictions.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nearing breakthrough...need magic :-)
    ... e = (n-1)! ... Regards, ... Mike. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... But first I need a clue as to what this "properties of its ... The properties of this set are: It has a cardinality of 3. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Tony Orlow says... ... Daryl McCullough ... Ithaca, NY ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... > If set S has S elements, from number 0 through S-1, then the element which maps ... where z is NOT a member of your original set S. You don't ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Tony Orlow writes: ... > William Hughes said: ... 15, 44793 Bochum ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)