Re: Well Ordering the Reals


boink wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:46:29 -0500, Tony Orlow wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Given N = {1,2,3,...}, let S_n = {1,2,3,...,n} = {x in N: 1 <= x <= n}.
> >>
> >> For all n in N there is m in N\S_n,
> >> so for all n in N, size(N) > size(S_n) = n.
> > No, here is your mistake. size(N) >= size(S_n) = n. The size is a member of the
> > set.
> >
>
> In any event,
> N is infinite.
> S_n is finite.
>
> This is very simple. I don't understand how you don't understand.

Dear mr boink,

I see you must be new around here.

Luv,
Chief Imaginator
http://imaginatorium.org
(Haven't you got boink.com or anything?)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> infinite? ... Oh, by the way, I don't believe in omega. ... > Ah, but what you don't understand, Mr. Boink, is that I have other ... variable sizes, is oxymoronic in extremis. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >> N is infinite. ... > Dear mr boink, ... > Chief Imaginator ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Olympics
    ... >>I see we wun then! ... > I'll start my planning already. ... Arrange a boink for then!!!!! ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: Stats rec.humor (last 7 days)
    ... >> Tis better to give up than receive, Milton. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (rec.humor)
  • Re: Olympics
    ... >I see we wun then! ... I'll start my planning already. ... Arrange a boink for then!!!!! ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
Loading